----- Original Message ----- From: Mistral mistral@centurytel.net
Fiona Moore wrote:
Just to give an example turned about the other way - you say Dorian gives Avon a 'decidedly cruisy' look. I don't doubt that you see it quite clearly; but in all honesty, it had never occurred to me that it might be interpreted that way until you said it.
But, if you compare it onscreen with the similar looks in "Weapon" (same-sex) and "Gold" (opposite-sex), and then consider the similarities of all three contexts, the dialogue in them, etc-- that's where the interpretation of cruisiness comes in. In Dorian's case, he makes a remark redolent of sexual suggestion ("indulge any pleasure... any <look> vice"); in Avon's, his face is devoid of expression until the woman in the revealing outfit passes, at which point: <look>. In Carnell's case, there is perhaps nothing in the dialogue or the social context to give the look a sexual intent; however, the similarity of that look to the two others cited is undeniable, and present, and we already know from his behaviour with Servalan that Carnell is not above using flirtation as a calculated tactic. Taken as single examples, they can be missed... but if you read them all together and try and work out the similarities of context, it does work.
Actually, too, I've turned up another example of cruising in B7, in "Breakdown." Blake asks Jenna to get information from Dr Renor about Professor Kayn. She says, "I'll try, I might not be his type, though." Blake laughs and says "You'll just have to take the chance." When they meet, Renor says "Hello, hello, hello!" in a lecherous tone; he gives her two cruisy looks and says "I had a feeling this was going to be a good day." Jenna cruises him back and says "you mustn't let your feelings run away with you..." A line or two later, he says "Do you believe in love at first sight?" She says, "not yet..."
Now, while Blake may not have originally asked her to actually flirt with Renor, her line, and his line after, make it clear that she has interpreted it in this way. Renor's greeting to her and flirtatious talk afterwards suggests that he is attracted to her; we know from her previous conversation with Blake that she intended to try flirtation as a means of persuasion. If you take those three looks, and compare the looks whose intention is being debated (Carnell's and Dorian's) with them, do they come out as similar at all?
Chris Boucher was simply cited as supporting evidence, which I do realise not everyone accepts.
I did wonder; one of the first things I learned in speech class was that citing evidence that the audience doesn't accept
Ah, but I didn't know that till I cited him, now did I :)?
To use Dorian as an example again: if you were to find out tomorrow that you'd been grossly misled and that the writer, actor, and director had all intended that Dorian was as straight as an arrow, would you suddenly have somehow _not_ seen the look he gave Avon as 'cruisy'? Of course not.
No, but I'd really, really wonder what went on there. To take a non-B7 example (I know, me and my side points...) the Doctor Who "companion" Captain Mike Yates, who has a fantastic line in queer innuendo and suggestion (my favourite being the long look he gives the Master's arse in "Terror of the Autons" :) ). Now, all the production evidence says that the character was intended to be straight as an arrow... however, there's also a lot of evidence from the production team and actors that there was a lot of kidding around and camping it up on the set at the time, and that frequently people on the set *would* deliberately throw in a piece of innuendo or suggestion about a character's sexuality, virginity etc. (and for some reason, perhaps *because* the character was intended to be totally straight, Yates seems to have come in for a lot of it), just to see if they could get away with it, wind up the director, whatever. Given that a look requires a deliberate effort, I'd be a bit curious as to why the actor tried out the look-- Something in his eye? Practical joke? Subversion of intent in order to try it on with the director? Accident?
After all, to take your Shakespeare example, if Shakespeare *had* left more in the way of
notes
as to what he intended, there would be a lot more agreement as to how
his
plays should be performed.
Which would be, IMNSHO, a _very_ bad thing for English lit in general and Shakespeare lovers in particular.
Oh, I'm in definite agreement with you there-- but also that a drama production with notes, collaboration, character sketches circulating around the team etc. is a bit of a different thing from a Shakespearian text-only approach. Just as, if you have a play with more in the way of notes (The Seagull, for instance), you have to make a decision whether to play it according to authorial intent or whether to throw away the notes, and why.
And I'm not trying solely to puzzle out the Bard's intent, either. It would be fascinating to know, but in many ways _less_ illuminating than the aggregate speculation.
Agreed. I've often thought that if there *was* some way of going back in time and finding out Shakespeare's intent, it would probably turn out to be a bit disappointing. Much like how I tend to prefer modern-dress Shakespeare to period-dress Shakespeare-- because I do like seeing the different spin on the words having it in modern dress gives. I like Shakespeare precisely because of the potential for interpretation...
make great art. The effectiveness of Blakes 7 as art is demonstrated by the strength and variety of response to it; trying to restrict fan response to an acknowledgement of authorial intent diminishes art, artists, and audiences.
Oh, agreed. But the discussion was about whether evidence for a certain reading was there or not-- not about whether or not that reading could be made, cos it obviously can and is. And I say, hurrah.
Fiona
The Posthumous Memoirs of Secretary Rontane Available for public perusal at http://nyder.r67.net
_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com