Hermione Granger is definitely a strong character in the Harry Potter stories and a good role model in young adult fiction. She is highly intelligent and is rewarded and respected for that intelligence. The adults around Hermione encourage her to develop her already finely-honed intellect. While certainly one of Harry’s sidekicks, it’s clear that Hermione has plenty going on in her life besides Harry’s exploits. She is a well-rounded secondary character who doesn’t fall into many of the girl friday sidekick stereotypes. (A few people think Hermione is a Mary Sue character for J.K. Rowling.) Having said all that, there’s something that’s always bugged me about the Harry Potter universe.

Why wasn’t Hermione the main character in this series?

Haven’t we seen enough stories like this with a boy as the main character? Luke Skywalker anyone? (who was originally supposed to be female). The movie UP is about a young boy and an old man. The robot in Wall-E is portrayed as masculine. Toy Story is about a boy’s cowboy and spaceman toys. Ratatouille’s main character is a young man. The dog in Bolt is male. The main character is Kung Fu Panda? Boy. The Incredibles is mostly about the father. I haven’t seen the Percy Jackson flick, but it seems like a Harry Potter wannabe — and I assume the main character is Percy Jackson, boy hero. Ice Age? Three male main characters.

Some of these stories have great female secondary characters like Hermione, Kung Fu Panda’s Tigress, and The Incredibles’ Helen and Violet. However, there’s really only one movie I can think of — aside from Disney princess movies — that has a female lead character and that’s Susan from Monsters and Aliens. Susan will definitely be a Danger Gal profile in the near future.

I have to point out, though, that of eight or so recent movies, one of them has a female lead. That’s not exactly a good track record. (UPDATE: I thought of one more after I wrote this: Ella Enchanted, but again, that’s a comedy and what’s at stake is not the world.) Aside from Disney princess movies can you think of any aimed at children and young adults that have a girl or young woman as the main character? (Please don’t say Twilight. I’d recommend a young woman read about Hermione Granger any day over Bella Swan). Buffy hasn’t been on screen for some time, but that show was really never meant to appeal to the same audience the Harry Potter stories.

So, in the comments, talk about your favorite girl hero and if you can’t think of any, what kind of heroine would you like to see? What books would you recommend with young or teenage heroines? Two on my list include The Girl Who Could Fly by Victoria Forester and pretty much anything by Rachel Caine in her Morganville Vampires series about Claire Danvers.

On screen, I’d like to see a more serious movie version of Sabrina, the Teenage Witch. Disney has a show called Wizards of Waverly Place with a female lead, but it’s a comedy and doesn’t deal with issues on the same level Harry Potter does. I’d love to see an update to Nancy Drew or something similar.

NOTE: In a sad example of how this type of story is just plain missing, take a look at this accidental search I did on Amazon while writing this post.

This week’s Danger Gal profile is on Neytiri from the blockbuster movie Avatar portrayed by actress Zoe Saldana.

It’s challenging to unpack my thoughts on this movie, especially keeping in mind that I have very much enjoyed Cameron’s previous films. I don’t want to have a knee-jerk fan-girl “I loved it!” response, but neither do I want to completely pan it. There are good and not-so-good elements in this movie, but I still think Neytiri stands out and is worthy of a Danger Gal profile.

One of the primary criteria for a Danger Gal profile is that the character must kick ass. I have in the past fudged a little on this point when other attributes seemed very important, but nothing like that is necessary with Neytiri. She knows herself, has confidence in her warrior abilities, and so does everyone else in her life. While certainly there are some anti-feminist aspects of her character and this movie, I tend to agree with Vocal Eyes when she says:

“Typically, women are portrayed as one or the other: the frigid one who knows better or the bimbo. The two have become mutually exclusive, as if a desire for love and sex cancels a desire for unrelated aspirations, values, and loyalties. Yet, Neytiri has it all; she is beautiful, sexual, intelligent, and follows her heart and her brain.”

“Though Neytiri’s role has been criticized as sex shaming and antifeminist, I think her place as a strong, resolute warrior woman with human desires for love and passion helps dismantle binaries between frigid women concerned with their rights and bimbos who have never heard of feminism.”

One of the main feminist criticisms of this film and of Neytiri specifically is that the character has breasts even though Cameron admitted the the Na’avi aren’t “placental mammals.” This is a blatant Science Fiction world-building “FAIL” and should be acknowledged as such. Having said that, Na’avi of both genders are portrayed as variations of mammals. Female Na’avi have breasts, but male Na’avi are built like caricatures of male mammals with the inverted “V” body shape prevalent in Romance genre heroes — extremely broad shoulders and narrow hips. To be blunt, I’m surprised there haven’t been more crude jokes about what Na’avi -Jake is hiding under that loin cloth. In that aspect, I think the objectification is fairly equal. The world-building fail had a purpose and that was to enable human mammals (i.e., the audience) to relate – and root for – the Na’avi. Moreover, despite Cameron’s enthusiasm for this aspect of the story, Neytiri is not defined by this attribute. In contrast to male Na’avi forms, Neytiri’s body shape is not really a caricature of the female one as compared to other female cartoon characters like Jessica Rabbit.

On the subject of bodies, FlowTV has a thoughtful article called “’I See You?’: Gender and Disability in Avatar” by Michael Peterson, Laurie Beth Clark, and Lisa Nakamura that critiques the story’s message on disabilities:

“When Jack Sully transmits his consciousness into the hybrid Na’avi body that he eventually comes to occupy permanently, a world of limits is evoked. We can see that the bias against disabled people is exactly the same in the future as it is at present… Sully’s spinal injury is repairable, but he can’t afford it. However, as we see during the avatar-training scenes, the disabled body is viewed as ‘waste’ that a thrifty military industrial complex can recoup… Sully is given the ability to acquire a prosthetic alien-soldier body not as compensation for his disability, but in spite of it–his genomic capital as the identical twin to his scientist-brother makes him the only possible match for the cloned Na’avi body, a technology far more expensive and precious than his own defective body.”

The idea of the body being viewed as “disposable” and “waste” seems to fit with the posthuman, almost cyberpunk, world Jake’s world has turned into. In many cyberpunk stories, the body is merely “meat” and considered disposable or at least undesirable without cyber upgrades. Also, Jakes world, where people have to wear masks against toxic air, doesn’t sound that distant from the world of Blade Runner. IO9 describes this world as the following:

First up, it gives us a look at what’s become of Earth. Turns out we’ve destroyed the planet — people wear clean-air breathing masks, the world is cluttered with ads, and sounds like a cold, concrete place. At least, that’s the world that poor and unfortunate Jake Sully calls home.

Also, I have to wonder what the discussion would have been like had Jake’s character been a female paraplegic. How would we view this idea of the body as not only disposable, but also something to completely reject, as Jake does at the end of the story?

Many critics have denigrated the movie as being just another “going native” derivative work, but commenter Pastabagel over at Metafilter makes a different observation:

“… we implicity believe that science = good and religions other than today’s mainline established ones are backward or pagan, which = bad. So the natives had to be civilized and brought forward into the present out of the past, and anyone that fought back wasn’t fighting only the invader, they were fighting civilization, science and progress itself… So Cameron has eliminated the casting of the Na’vi as being in need of civilization. They don’t need it, they don’t want it, and what they already naturally have is in many respects better. So the audience now understands that it isn’t simply – stubbornness of fear of change underlying Na’vi rejection of humans gifts to them. It’s that the Na’vi simply don’t need what the humans are offering.”

There are two main differences, as I see it, between Avatar and other “going native” stories: (1) the enlightened spirituality of the Na’avi is objectively verifiable in the story, and (2) when Jake goes native there is no going back. Viewers can’t write off the Na’avi idea of Eywa as some kind of “New Age mojo” because the scientist in the story (a woman, but more on that later) verifies that it’s in fact a real, biological network.

One of the aspects of this movie that struck me and I haven’t seen criticized elsewhere was that, with the exception of Michelle Rodriguez, all of the Na’avi are portrayed by non-white actors and all of the non-Na’avi characters are portrayed by white actors. This thematically reinforces the erroneous idea of the “noble savage” that the objective nature of the planet is attempting to subvert. I would much rather have seen more ethnic diversity on both sides of the story’s conflict. IO9’s Annalee Newitz explores some of these ideas in “When will white people stop making movies like Avatar?”

Likewise, gender assumptions are functioning similarly in that on the human side of the conflict, all of those who want to destroy the Na’avi are male and it’s a human female scientist who recognizes the error. While I loved that Cameron created a scientist who also happens to be female – something we need to see more often — there are overtones that she sees the mother in Pandora’s “mother nature” precisely because of her femaleness.

On balance, I enjoyed Avatar and relished in Neytiri’s experiences. She is a strong character with her own arc and is not written as the stereotypical sidekick, or as Jezebel put it “handbags” or “girlfriend parts.” A formidable warrior, Neytiri is Jake Sully’s mentor not just in the softer emotions of falling love, but in the Na’avi art of war. Avatar is also another example of a Science Fiction Romance that doesn’t skimp on the world-building, science, or character relationships.

Having said that, I can’t help but wonder what this movie would have been like had the main point-of-view character been female and we’d seen more ethnic diversity on both sides of the story’s conflict. On this idea, Cameron should remember what has been said about him:

Gale Anne Hurd, Cameron’s second wife, and the producer of his first three films, says that Cameron always found women more interesting than men as protagonists. “He felt that they were underutilized in sci-fi, action, and fantasy,” she said. “And that just about everything you could explore in a male action hero could be explored better with a woman.”

Award-winning actor, writer, and producer Connor Fox has played opposite Jude Law, Josh Gadd and Cillian Murphy. His current role is in the TV movie Mothman alongside Jewel Staite, which will be airing on the SyFy Channel on April 24, 2010. Connor loves science fiction and grew up watching the original Twilight Zone on the SyFy Channel, a show he calls “the eighth wonder of the world”. Connor’s films include Watching the Detectives, Descent, Kin of You, Invisible Man, and Blood Night. He also won Best Young Actor at the Downbeach Film Festival for his lead role in the indie film Ice Grill USA. In addition to the big screen, Connor also works in television and recently shot two pilots: one for Comedy Central (Evan and Gareth) and the other for FOX (Have You Slept With Me?).

When Connor is not acting, he’s busy writing for both the stage and screen. His newest original work, Sintax, is now in pre-production. He’s also currently writing a Science Fiction feature film comedy/adventure called The Chest, a SciFi pilot and series concept inspired by the original Twilight Zone, and an science fiction comic book series entitled The Last Planet.

Neither of these female characters are shrinking violets and they’re not rescued any more than any of the male characters. In fact, Mikaela deals far better in life-or-death situations than Sam Witwicky does and rescues him from the Decepticon named Frenzy. She’s self-contained and, as evidenced by her walking away from her idiot and condescending boyfriend, doesn’t take crap from anyone. She’d rather walk home than get a ride from a guy who treats her like an idiot. ** When Sam’s car, Bumblebee in disguise, “breaks down” Mikaela is quick to try to solve the problem. Contrasting Sam with the guy Mikaela just walked away from, Sam is in no way intimidated by Mikaela’s ability to take care of herself and whatever car she’s driving. (Or moped — I really thought her the type to have a motorcyle rather than a moped.)

In the end, it’s Mikaela who rigs an injured Bumblebee onto a tow truck and hauls him around so he can fight the Decepticons. She sees an opportunity to make a difference and takes it, even if it puts her own life in danger. She doesn’t expect others to fight for her. So, while I’d certainly like to see less of Fox’s physical exploitation in the movie, her character’s resolve is a positive counterpoint. Also, she stands up to the Sector Seven officer to the point of revenge and in the end isn’t punished for that, but is instead rewarded with having her juvenile record expunged. Mikaela is definitely not a perfect, princess-type figure waiting for others to rescue her and solve the story’s problem.

The other character I found interesting in Transformers is former NSA analyst and Rand Corporation employee Maggie Madsen. Maggie has a colorful past, having lost her NSA job because she has a tendency to speak her mind bluntly, but she’s also acknowledged to be brilliant. She leads her team in discovering the hostile agent hacking into Air Force One. While I feel bad for her feet in those stilettos and think their presence is ridiculous, she’s not sexually exploited and is considered valuable. In the end she’s part of those who defeat the Decepticons.

On balance, I found unexpected feminist aspects of both these characters in Transformers. No one doubts these two women’s ability to accomplish what they set out to do. I’m not optimistic about more of the same from the second Transformers movie from what I’ve been told, but I wanted to at least highlight these unexpected aspects of the first Transformers movie.

Having said all that, I’d really love to see a Transformer with a female voice. Hear that Michael Bay?

* Also, I sort of like that Fox has been plain about creating a persona for the men’s magazines. Some of her quotes are definitely disarming and blunt, a refreshing trend from a “sex symbol.” If it’s true, then she’s created a character to play and admitting it points a finger at how ridiculous it is. Fox seems to be playing the stereotypical vixen and at the same time breaking that character down. That’s not something we normally see in the run-of-the-mill starlet.

** The Transformers Wiki claims that Mikaela hid her car knowledge from other boyfriends. I didn’t really get this out of those scenes. Rather, it seemed Mikaela doesn’t open up to people in general and so would not just automatically share personal information even with a boyfriend. When her boyfriend writes her off as just a pretty face, she walks away without looking back.She’s not afraid to be alone or on her own.

In the cartoon, Trixie did little more than yell “Speed!” and moan a lot, so I appreciate how they developed the character in the movie, actually portraying as an active character with interests outside of her love for Speed Racer. Rebecca Murray mentions that Trixie is “an outgoing young woman who’s equally unafraid of dressing girlie and kicking a little butt” and quotes Ricci as saying:

“Trixie is Speed’s childhood sweetheart. He’s his best friend and confidant; his partner in crime. In some ways, she’s the feminist ideal model. She’s as girly as she wants to be, she’s into her hair and outfits and makeup … she has a special outfit for each activity, but at the same time she’s into all the things the boys are. She’s never judged or given the irritating title of ‘tomboy’ and that’s important for young women. Young women tend to watch the reaction of men around older women and they see if someone’s judged, positively or negatively, in too strong a way. Young women shy away from making those kinds of decisions.”

At the Tribeca Film Festival, Ricci has actually considered her character Trixie from a feminist point of view and said:

“It was really fun. It’s fun to play someone who’s a little bit cartoonish. They dressed me up like a doll, but then they let me go and fight people and race cars and fly a helicopter so it was fun…It was really fun and it was something that I loved because that really is the sort of ultimate feminist thing where you can be as girlie as you want to be, but you’re still as capable and as able to do everything that the boys can do. But I still want more.”

Trixie evidently isn’t just the girlfriend of Speed Racer, but an important member of the Racer family’s racing team. Speed clearly respects her abilities. We get to see Trixie coming to Speed’s rescue, racing Taejo Togokahn’s car, repairing engines, and flying a helicopter among other things.

As a side note, one character did have to strip down to skivvies in this movie — and for once it wasn’t a woman. Nope, this time it was Matthew Fox as Racer X. Never in my girlish crush did I ever expect to see Racer X in his boxers and all the while fighting a ninja!

First Trixie flying, racing, and rebuilding engines. Then Racer X in his boxers. Can I watch the movie again?

Number One was played by Majel Barrett, wife of Gene Roddenberry. Originally, Number One had also served as first officer under Christopher Pike on the USS Yorktown before joining him on the Enterprise. Network executives made several changes to the series after the original pilot, one of which included changing Barrett’s character to Nurse Chapel. Number One’s “highly-logical, steel-trap mind” was then attributed to Spock instead. I have few criticisms of the new Star Trek movie, and in fact very much enjoyed it, but one facet that saddened me was the continuation of the Nurse Chapel character without any reference to the Number One character. Initially, Spock was the science officer, but the new movie continues with the idea that he is both chief science officer and first or executive officer.

While I appreciated the update to Uhura’s character, I do hope that Abrams touches on the Number One character in future installments of the new franchise considering he’s also created characters such as Alias’ Sydney Bristow* and previous Danger Gal Fringe’s Olivia Dunham. Jennifer Weiner at The Huffington Post voices many of my misgivings with the female characters in the new movie:

Honestly, I didn’t have a problem until about midway through the film…at which point I realized that every single lady on screen was either a mother, a ho, or an intergalactic hood ornament.

Memory Alpha describes Number One: “. . . she held the rank of lieutenant. She was noted for her exceptional intelligence and rationality. In 2254, Captain Pike regarded Number One as the most experienced officer on the Enterprise.” Evidently, Roddenberry initially based the Starfleet rank structure on the 18th and 19th century British navy, when a ship’s second-in-command was often a First Lieutenant, rather than 20th century Naval ranks now associated with the series.

In “The Cage,” the Talosians reveal to Pike that Number One harbored feelings for him. Number One and Spock at one point installed computer upgrades that made the Enterprise voice-interactive. They utilized her voice-pattern, which was later carried over into all Starfleet computers.

Many different names have been associated with Number One in the Star Trek expanded universe: Eunice Robbins and Morgan Primus among others.

* I thought I’d already profiled Sydney Bristow, but when I searched the archives I discovered that I’ve neglected her! I’ll try to rectify that shortly.

I admit to having mixed feelings about this movie and about Mary’s character. Charlize Theron, who portrayed Mary in the 2008 movie, had this to say about the character:

“She makes this conscious decision to live in suburbia and be this soccer mum to her stepson and be the perfect wife—she lives in this bubble. But when people do that it usually means they are hiding some characteristic inside themselves that scares them. That is Mary’s case. She knows who she is and what she is capable of. I find it very complex when I get to play women like that.”

As visual evidence that Mary is not living authentically, we see her appearance change pretty drastically when she finally owns up to her true nature: Mary transforms from hippie housewife to black-clad superhero. The black eyeliner alone tells you not mess with her, right?

Turns out that Mary and Hancock are, in Mary’s words:

“Gods, angels. . . Different cultures call us by different names. Now all of a sudden it’s superhero. . .Whatever we are, we’re built in twos. We’re drawn together. No matter how far I run, he’s [Hancock] always there! He finds me. It’s physics.”

The only two of their kind left, Mary and Hancock have been breaking up and reuniting for millennia. The problem? When they’re together both lose their superhuman abilities and become vulnerable. By the way, when their powers are manifest Mary is the stronger of the two.

This is actually a great romantic concept: That love makes you vulnerable. Mary and Hancock, however, are subverting their destinies by periodically breaking up after particularly nasty events, perpetuated by outside forces, happen to them that nearly kill one or both. The most recent was a mugging that nearly killed Hancock. Mary stayed away initially so Hancock could make use of his superhuman healing abilities, but then decided it was best if they never reunited (or maybe they’re just “on a break,” we’re not told). He ended up with amnesia and therefore has no clue about his identity or the source of his powers. Hancock doesn’t know who he is without Mary.

You’d think they’d ask why this pattern keeps repeating? Is there a Big Bad out there with their demise as a goal? Or is it just that if you live long enough, bad things eventually happen? When together, proximity or love, possibly both, turn these two superhumans into regular people. Maybe they’re supposed to live a natural life together and die like the rest of us? Instead of sticking it out together when bad things happen they break up and become superhuman again.

So, what happens in the end? Do these two lovers learn how to live life being vulnerable both physically and emotionally? Um, no. Nope, the world needs a protector and Hancock is The One.

Never mind that Mary is actually stronger and therefore actually more qualified for the job.

Mary decides to stay in the bubble. Sure, she’s doing good work creating a stable environment for her step-son and seems to have a good drama-free relationship with her husband. I do like this twist on the fated mate motif, and Mary and Hancock need to form identities separate from simply being one part of an eternal dyad. So, if separating is what’s best for both of them — if the real romance here is between Mary and Aaron — I still don’t like that Mary decides to keep her superior powers under wraps. There’s a double-standard going on here in that Hancock isn’t permitted to shirk his superhero duties, so why should Mary get a free pass? The world needs all the help it can get. Why do either of them have to choose between family and career? If Aaron really loved Mary he wouldn’t want her to keep her light under a bushel.

Overall, I like the Mary Embrey character mostly because, despite this double-standard, she is not a reactive female character. To the contrary, it was Mary who decided to leave Hancock, Mary who decided to form a family with Aaron Embrey, Mary who decided to out her superpowers, and Mary who decided to remain with Aaron. The men in her life, and the world at large, have to accept those choices. I generally like the roles Charlize Theron picks because more often than not, she chooses to play active, choice-making characters like Embrey — even if I don’t always agree with those choices. For this alone I think Mary Embrey qualifies as a Danger Gal — the superpowers of course help.

Watchmen depicts superheroes as real people who must confront ethical and personal issues, who struggle with neuroses and failings, and who—with one notable exception—lack anything recognizable as super powers. Watchmen’s deconstruction of the conventional superhero archetype, combined with its innovative adaptation of cinematic techniques and heavy use of symbolism, multi-layered dialogue, and metafiction, has influenced both comics and film.

Now the casting of Morgan (Edward Blake/The Comedian) and Wilson (Nite Owl) makes much more sense and I can see either of them portraying these kinds of characters with aplomb (not to mention the eye candy factor…). I even kind of like Silk Spectre’s costume, it seems no more ridiculous than her male counterparts, especially the blue glowy dude in the speedo (Doctor Manhattan, played by Billy Crudup). Watch the trailer below:

This week’s Danger Gal Friday profile is on Marion Ravenwood from the Indiana Jones saga. Twenty-seven years ago, Karen Allen took on the role of feisty heroine Marion Ravenwood, proprietor of a bar in Nepal, and returns to that character in the recent Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull movie.

Marion challenged stereotypes from the beginning by owning a bar on the edge of civilization, and even out-drinking the men there. All through the first movie Marion constantly stood up to Indy and her actions followed her own compass.

With this new movie, we get a rare glimpse of a woman’s lifespan and see that Marion is still considered important even though she’s no longer the ingénue. In fact, it’s clear from The Crystal Skull that Marion has really come into her own, created a life for her and her son even though Indy left her. I think she let Indy off a little easy, but I have to admit that even I would have a difficult time staying angry at the likes of Indiana Jones.

I agree with the Women In Hollywood blog that Marion’s character was a “much more realistic foil and partner for Indy than the women who followed.” WIH reminds us of some of the great roles for actresses in 1981 when that first Indy movie came out, such as Silkwood, Norma Rae, 9 to 5, Yentl – and I would add to that Empire Strikes Back. I think these kinds of roles set the bar for me of what I expect from Hollywood when it comes to female characters in movies. As a young girl at the time I was spending afternoons pretending to be Princess Leia and Marion Ravenwood. I’m not seeing these kinds of roles for women currently, and hope that changes soon.

Multiple Universes sums up perfectly why Marion’s character is one hundred ways to awesome:

If there’s one thing cooler than the return of Indiana Jones to THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL then it’s the fact that his first, and best love interest Marion Ravenwood will be accompanying the adventurer for the first time in 27 years. Sure Indy’s gotten busy with a Shanghai chanteuse and a Nazi spy in that time, but none of these ladies had the moxie of this hard-drinking, hard-punching tomboy. As personified by the raven-haired Karen Allen in RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, Marion Ravenwood became an icon of female derring-do as she got herself into one fix after the other between basket chases, devious monkeys and slithering Egyptian snakes.

I’m glad that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas haven’t watered down Marion at all in the new movie. The Feminist Spectator points out that:

. . . Karen Allen, returning as Marion, has fun representing a middle-aged woman who’s more than a domestic help-mate for Indy. She drives their get-away cars over cliffs, confident that they’ll all survive; she delights in fighting off evil physically and intellectually; and she never cowers in the face of the fearsome or revolting challenges that confront Indy’s party on their way to the story’s happy finale. Watching her take such energetic good fun in being part of the crew brings a welcome point of female identification to the typically masculine (and male) action story.

The Feminist Spectator didn’t so much appreciate the happily ever after ending, specifically the “conservative conclusion in marriage,” but I don’t see this as any sort of “taming” of Marion. I see it as two soul mates finally getting it that they’re happier together than apart. Since we get to see Indy appreciate a very active Marion in this second movie, I’m confident these two will continue on other adventures together. Karen Allen might love to nest and knit, but I can’t see Marion sitting back while Indy has his adventures. I also can’t see Indy wanting her to miss any of the action either.

As an aside, I’d love to see a comic, or even another movie, showing what adventures Marion has had in the intervening 27 years.

The Feminist Spectator also points out that Cate Blanchett’s character is an interesting one in her own right, and is not simply a one-dimensional foil for Indy:

Likewise, Blanchett’s villain, with her silly black helmet-hair and her icy blue eyes—however ridiculous the character or her recycled Cold War conflict—provides a fun display of female power and ingenuity. With two women in central roles—one good, one bad—the Crystal Skull offers more gender balance to the action-adventure plot.

Just like Montag, I think that “Indiana Jones without Marion Ravenwood is like a Reuben sandwich without sauerkraut.”