Blakes7

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

5511 discussions

Fwd: Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Sally Manton 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

Mac4781(a)aol.com writes: <Re the eye injury/reference to Travis in the script: Chris knew Blake was going to die at Avon's hands. And he was still expecting a fifth season when he wrote this.> Agreed. <He might have been setting it up so that Avon wouldn't look so dastardly for killing Blake. He might have wanted Blake to appear to have followed Travis' path of fanaticism. In word and deed Blake is often shown to be more fanatical than rational in the episode. And that leads to monumental failure.> But - with all due respect - this and the following *is* a good example of what has been discussed as the danger of trying to decide what the author's intention actually were. Notwithstanding what Calle says about taking the author's word for his intentions - which I agree with to an extent - let's take it bit by bit. Boucher definitely did want to show the dangers of fanaticism in Blake - *in Star One* (the fact that IMO he muffed it by one-sidedness notwithstanding). Blake is *not* fanatical here, he's fatalistic, and jaded and more detached ("doing relatively decent things for relatively decent reasons"). But as Boucher said himself "he was idealistic enough to be taken in by the girl," to stop her killing Tarrant rather than letting him escape - and to trust that Avon would hear him out. Actually, in several interviews, GT has also said it was originally *his* idea that GP Blake be "a rebel, but a real rebel, the Che Guavera type" and "dirty" ... "scarred, vicious, but a hero still fighting for the right things." As with the fact that it was Avon pulling the trigger ("I wanted to shoot him in the back, but they wouldn't let me") it was possibly something over which the author had limited control - (bearing in mid that the actor's memories may be as subject to scrutiny as the writer's, of course, but given that it was Gareth's demand for Blake to die, it makes sense.) <And that leads to monumental failure. > That has to do with his loss of his judgement re trust: there is *nothing* in 'Blake' that indicates it has anything to do with fanaticism. He accepts Arlen when he shouldn't, and lets Tarrant escape when he shouldn't. ("I find it difficult to trust. It's a failing, I admit -!") <Travis' final act was an attempt to wipe out the human race. Blake's final act is to wipe out his Gauda Prime base and followers.> And Avon's final act was to wipe out his ship and followers as well, so it would appear rather like the house that Jack built. Except that the cases are completely *completely* different. Travis's *deliberate* act of attempted mass murder has absolutely nothing in common with Blake's mistaken trust - in Arlen and in the Avon he no longer knew - that led to the GP catastophe (I still think he was right not to trust Tarrant right off, after all, Tarrant didn't trust him either; they're neither of them that stupid). Actually, Chris *appears* to play games with the audience re the Travis thing - there's the ruined eye and the increased coldness and detachment, but at the same time, there's the clear indicators of what separated them as well (Blake's warm relationship with Deva, bearing in mind how clearly we were told Travis had no friends; the way his major trust mistakes - Arlen and Avon - are because he *did* give it rather than withhold it). The idea appears to me to be sort of like sleight of hand - get the viewer to doubt Blake for a while, to think exactly what Mac4781@aol suggests - then aha! - show that's he's still a genuine rebel, still one of the Good, if badly Battered Guys - then show *Tarrant* thinking what the audience did - then - oh god! have the second aha! where Tarrant agains learns what the audience did stuffed up - and then there's no chance for a third one. It's like a warped card trick, where *we* can see that the joker's really still the king, but no one on screen can. <And Avon is the man who rid the series of two "fanatics" who were dangerous to others.> See above. Blake is no more dangerous to his followers than Avon is to his - and in fact, since it was simply a series of mistakes, he is no more dangerous than any leader who makes horrendous mistakes. He and Avon made them before (as did Tarrant in his breif leadership spells) but were luckier in the consequences those times (aka the series still had a way to go). They are *all* dangerous to others, but not even vaguely does that make them worth 'ridding the series' of. Again, going back to CB, he makes it fairly clear in both 'The Inside story' and 'The programme Guide' that he saw Avon killing Blake as a horrendous mistake and a dreadful act - "Avon was left with one ideal human being, one ideal of certainty, and that was Blake. He then found himself in a situation where Blake appeared to have betrayed him, and he couldn't take it ... there was no doubt in his mind, actually, about Blake. He really believed the guy was honest."* (Prog Guide) "Avon having killed Blake, he becomes protective of him. He's quite insane at this point ..." (Inside Story). - and one for which Avon will have to atone - "Having killed Blake, within Avon there is now an unavoidable sense of responsibility ... he's stuck with having to do what Blake would have done." (Inside story) So it is apparent that Boucher does *not* think Avon's action in killing Blake was 'not as dastardly' - in fact, he appears - both on camera and from his own words - to be setting it up as as horrible and unacceptable as possible (in which Gareth assisted by making sure it was as gory and horrible a shooting as possible) while retaining the audience's sympathy for Avon - in this even-more-dreadful-situation-than-Rumours position as well. This makes a lot more sense to me for two reasons: [a] trying to make it seem - even subliminally - that Blake was somehow 'worthy' of being killed does a rather horrible, almost cheapening hatchet job on the tragedy Chris has given us. WWhat makes it soooo agonising is that no one deserved what happened to them - Blake *least* of at all; [a] if there was going to be a 5th season, since the dramatic possibilities are so much richer if Avon has done something that by his own and other people's standards is actually unforgiveable. I do think that, had there been a S5, Chris - like any writer worth his pen and ink - would have milked that agony good and proper. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

2 1

Fwd: Dinosaurs (was Re:[B7L] Crichton (was decentring morality)]
by Sally Manton 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

Neil: <Anyway, Avon's not a bit like Gan.> and Harriet: <They were both depressed about their girlfriends (supposedly) being killed by the Federation.> and they both tended to argue with Blake, then end up doing what Blake wanted them to, even when they didn't think it was a good idea ... _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

Fwd: [B7L] decentering morality
by Sally Manton 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

Leia wrote: <I love that bit. Especially as I've never quite been able to figure out if Vila was just being Vila and talking rubbish or if he really considered it.> Vila's own safety is at stake. Don't know if at this stage he'd be up to doing it himself, but he'd support anyone else doing it. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

decentering morality
by Leia Fee 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

Harriet wrote >Jenna: He [Avon] fixes the log, the crew dump us [out of the airlock], >pocket the profit, and set him free. >Vila: That's immoral. The cold-hearted murdering -- let's kill him now >before he can do it. I love that bit. Especially as I've never quite been able to figure out if Vila was just being Vila and talking rubbish or if he really considered it. Leia

1 0

RE: RE: Re: Interpretation (was Re: [B7L] Re: decentring morality)
by jacquispeel＠netscape.net 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

"R. L. Stroud" <rstroud(a)qwest.net> wrote: >Jacqui writes: >> I sometimes see Assassin as having 'sexist' overtones - >> Servalan's remark about simpering Piri being a credit to the >> female sex (rearranging quote), & there is a remark by Neebrox etc > >This might be a case of me seeing what I wanted to see, but I always took >Servalan's remark to mean that she knew Piri's true character and admired >her tactic of using the men's chivalrous and sexist nature against them. >Although now that I think about it, Servalan needn't be a feminist, after >all, most historian feel Elizabeth I wasn't either. > >rs > I meant in the sense that eg Powerplay 'shows' what one logical outcome of the gender war might be - but with Assassain the remarks are throwaway lines - which is perhaps what sexism etc is about. (and as was said a while back B7 does have a 'good record' for its time in treating women of the professional classes as equal to men - including eg Jenna as professional smuggler.) Jacqui __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

1 0

RE: Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by jacquispeel＠netscape.net 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

"Marian de Haan" <mariandehaan(a)chello.nl> wrote: >Carol wrote: >>Here's an interesting bit--the description of Arlen: >>"She is in her late teens - a thin harsh girl, fierce and ready to kill." >>Later we learn this *teen* is a Federation *officer*. Which goes along >with my theory that military officers were put through an accelerated >learning process that had them graduating from FSA before students in our >era would have begun university.< > >Or else they can buy their rank (thanks to family connections?) without >having to go through the training. > >>Re the eye injury/reference to Travis in the script: Chris knew Blake was >going to die at Avon's hands. And he was still expecting a fifth season >when he wrote this. He might have been setting it up so that Avon wouldn't >look so dastardly for killing Blake. He might have wanted Blake to appear >to have followed Travis' path of fanaticism. In word and deed Blake is >often shown to be more fanatical than rational in the episode. And that >leads to monumental failure. Travis' final act was an attempt to wipe out >the human race. Blake's final act is to wipe out his Gauda Prime base and >followers. And Avon is the man who rid the series of two "fanatics" who >were dangerous to others. < > >Considering that Boucher was responsible for Blake's darker side, this makes >sense. > >Thanks for sharing these details of the rehearsal script with us, Carol. > >Marian > And (as I noticed on a previous occasion) in Star One Avon stands briefly across Travis Jacqui __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/

1 0

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Marian de Haan 28 Sep '01

28 Sep '01

Carol wrote: >Here's an interesting bit--the description of Arlen: >"She is in her late teens - a thin harsh girl, fierce and ready to kill." >Later we learn this *teen* is a Federation *officer*. Which goes along with my theory that military officers were put through an accelerated learning process that had them graduating from FSA before students in our era would have begun university.< Or else they can buy their rank (thanks to family connections?) without having to go through the training. >Re the eye injury/reference to Travis in the script: Chris knew Blake was going to die at Avon's hands. And he was still expecting a fifth season when he wrote this. He might have been setting it up so that Avon wouldn't look so dastardly for killing Blake. He might have wanted Blake to appear to have followed Travis' path of fanaticism. In word and deed Blake is often shown to be more fanatical than rational in the episode. And that leads to monumental failure. Travis' final act was an attempt to wipe out the human race. Blake's final act is to wipe out his Gauda Prime base and followers. And Avon is the man who rid the series of two "fanatics" who were dangerous to others. < Considering that Boucher was responsible for Blake's darker side, this makes sense. Thanks for sharing these details of the rehearsal script with us, Carol. Marian

1 0

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Natasa Tucev 28 Sep '01

28 Sep '01

Alison wrote: >I was thinking of the elegance and symmetry of the structure of B7, how >situations are set up, and then inverted. Let me just take one, >comparatively minor example, which is Jenna being invited to take the >Liberator and run, at the start of her journey (Cygnus Alpha) and at the end >of it (Star One), and refusing each time, with that refusal having a >different meaning. If that was the only example it wouldn't exactly tip the >scales, but we can uncover so many of a similar kind, in each character's >arc and in the multiple arcs of the different stories and the joint story. A few more examples of come to mind: -Gan saying he's willing to die for others in 'Bounty' - and actually dying that way in 'Pressure Point'; - Jenna and Blake sharing a joke about the self-destruct button in 'Cygnus Alpha' - and Blake talking about Jenna's death in the final episode; - the scene in which Avon points his gun at Blake in 'Cygnus Alpha', and Blake walks towards him unarmed, but certain that Avon won't fire - and that same scene echoed in 'Blake'. N.

2 1

Jacqueline Pearce in Leeds
by Harriet Monkhouse 28 Sep '01

28 Sep '01

I gather Jacqueline Pearce is currently appearing in Priestley's Dangerous Corner at the West Yorkshire Playhouse - the Telegraph's review actually reminded readers that she was "Servelan [sic] from Blake's 7". -- Harriet Jarriere: "That's brilliant, Commander!" - Gambit

1 0

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Natasa Tucev 28 Sep '01

28 Sep '01

Neil wrote: >I wouldn't be so sure of asserting that its irrational animosity is all that >unconscious. I haven't read Crichton's original novel (Eaters of the Dead), >but I gather he and director John 'Die Hard' McTiernan had a major bust-up >during filming and McTiernan won. The only Crichton novel I've read was >Jurassic Park, and that contained several sharp digs at the kind of attitude >embodied in 13W. Yes, I had quite a different impression while watching Jurassic Park (I haven't read the book). There is, for instance, the curious fact that practically everybody ends up with a leg injury - starting with the grandad who uses a walking stick from the start. What does it suggest, the warning that the society is moving in a wrong direction? Is it the same in the novel? N.

4 4

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Blakes7