Opinion From Archies to ‘The Archies’: Why must we wokewash classics?
Why can’t we move on and find new characters and stories of today? Is it to continue to feel connected to our roots? Is it at the end of the day, just an exercise in marketing the brand?
Someone who watches The Archies without having the experience of reading the classic comic books is likely to have the same experience we did when we watched Barbie (and played with Barbie growing up) and later learnt about its origin in the German Lilli doll which was meant as an adult novelty doll, not a plaything for kids. (Source: IMDb) 
I didn’t grow up reading the Archie Comics. I knew the movie was set to release soon, so it was largely out of curiosity that I picked up a random digest recently (my first ever Archie comic) — a second-hand copy of a double digest of Betty and Veronica no. 74 published in September 1998. I dived into the digest looking to acquaint myself with the characters and the setting, just so I have some context.
Instantly, I did not like what I read. From the very first page, the two girls are pitted against each other in trying to capture boys’ attention. Throughout, the girls were portrayed as jealous, obsessive, scheming (on Veronica’s end) and entirely distraught about having lost a boy to the other. Both tend to vanity, Veronica a bit more than Betty, again largely in pursuit of popularity among boys. There is little else that seems to concern them.
Halfway through, I came across something I couldn’t believe. It was a pin-up of Veronica in a two-piece bathing suit and a speech bubble from Archie sitting in the background. The bubble had puzzle blanks that when solved read, “A beautiful girl is… a girl who has a lovely profile all the way down.” Who thought this appropriate?
I turned the pages to look at the editorial team that produced it: Script by Joe Edwards; Editors of the digest were Nelson Ribeiro and Victor Gorelick; Editor-in-Chief was Richard Goldwater. It shows. I could have guessed that there was no woman on the team. This, is when the digest is about the relationship between two teenage girls and the major readership is young, impressionable and female. Publishers Weekly figures of the time said that the average reader was 11 years old and 60 per cent were female.
I am aware that I am not the first person to have noted this. There has been plenty of academic ink spilt over decades on how Archie Comics has been problematic in its portrayal of women with evident sexualisation of the female body and the nasty reduced representation of female friendships As I started reading more about it, I learnt of the subtler injustices that academics have noted over decades.
For example, did you know that largely all the female characters share the same body and face with very minor adjustments? Their hair (blonde for Betty and black for Veronica) is the only distinguishing factor. Only the characters who are shown to be unattractive have any individuality in drawings. In contrast, all the male characters have very distinct facial features. Isn’t it interesting, and somewhat poetic that the women are just as easily interchangeable in drawings as their characters are for Archie in the plotline?
There’s plenty more that’s wrong with the comics such as the racism and body-shaming as noted by many scholars. And so a day before the movie was released, I wondered why we are excited about giving the Archie Comics relevance today. I understand that it’s iconic and nostalgic for a large group of people, but should we continue to expose our young people to offensive content because we were exposed to it?
[spoilers for Zoya Akhtar’s The Archies in this section]
Of course, The Archies was not offensive. From the get-go, you see Betty and Ronnie sharing an actual friendship. One of my favourite scenes was when the duo took Archie down for “two-timing” them which ended in neither of them being romantically interested in him any more. I also appreciated the lessons in civics and community organisation that should inspire young people to take action. Dilton is gay and his friends, especially Reggie, show sensitivity towards his feelings. A lot is going on, but it still seems a solid good-hearted effort in adapting the comics to today’s time. So why not, right?
It may be a bit more complicated than that. Someone who watches The Archies without having the experience of reading the classic comic books is likely to have the same experience we did when we watched Barbie (and played with Barbie growing up) and later learnt about its origin in the German Lilli doll which was meant as an adult novelty doll, not a plaything for kids. It’s missing context.
It also raises several questions about why and how we decide to give something space and relevance. Why do we feel the need to “wokewash” problematic storylines to keep the classics alive? Why can’t we move on and find new characters and stories of today? Is it to continue to feel connected to our roots? Is it at the end of the day, just an exercise in marketing the brand?
Archie Comics has noted the criticism and tried to adapt to the times. Their newer content is not as reductive. The 2015 reboot of Archie Comics is said to be more representative of its time. There is even a popular spin-off webtoon called Big Ethel Energy that is more progressive and makes a protagonist out of Ethel, who was ridiculed and body-shamed for being overweight. Some of the older comics now on sale come with disclaimers like: “This publication contains material that was originally created in a less racially and socially sensitive time in our society and reflects attitudes that may be acknowledged as offensive today.”
It makes sense for them as they are a business that needs to stay relevant to the times. It might make sense for the artists as personal nostalgic projects. And it makes sense for us as consumers of the art and its adaptations to consume it with the context.
Galhotra is an independent lawyer and writer based in Jaipur
Share
