Reading Neil and Jacqueline's posts ... I sort of take a middle path. Yes, IMO the sexism subtext *is* there (one never denied it) but it's not the *same* subtext it would be if the characters weren't who they were. The latter does influence the former (and vice versa, of course). I said before, I do think having *Avon* in the role subverts it quite nicely because of his kerflummoxed reactions and deep - if Avonishly covered-up mortification at the whole thing (Blake wouldn't have been nearly as much fun, love him as I do. Jenna or Cally may have been admirable reverse-sexism, but would have been dull in themselves. Vila ... oh dear oh dear, only if the Grecian robes in red fur <g>) Avon would have been a lot more comfortable if Meegat had just looked him straight in the eye and said "you do this job for me and I'll help you get your crewmember back. Deal?" For all his arrogance, he has a sense of the ridiculous, and he feels ridiculous in the role the plot has pushed him into.
That the author - whether it's Nation in the original script or Boucher in the re-write - may not have intended this subversion is not important. 'Tis unlikely the author meant to write a sexist tract, either, so we're all reading stuff in as we watch. (Isn't that part of the fun? Don't answer that <g>).
To illustrate the importance of the characters - to me, at least - may I suggest a few recasts? Imagine taking out Avon and putting in Jarvik (from Kairos) or Carnell (from Weapon). Or James T Kirk (ick. Double ick. Six million times ick). Now take them out and put in Harold from 'Neighbours'.* If you can see the same type of sexism in the image of *him* firing off rockets, phallic or otherwise, you're doing better than I am ...
Take out Meegat - naive, desperately, embarrasingly in earnest, but still with total composure - and put in Piri. Or consider Xena or Callisto. Or Sally from 'Third Rock from the Sun'.
There would still be the same sexual subtext and assumptions in all of these versions (personally the Harold/Callisto one appeals to me) but they're differently twisted in each case.
As always JMHO ...
Sally
*Before anyone groans, I have Small Relatives. I tend to see (not watch) small amounts of a lot of programs I'd rather not have :-)
_________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
From: Sally Manton smanton@hotmail.com
Reading Neil and Jacqueline's posts ... I sort of take a middle path.
Yes,
IMO the sexism subtext *is* there (one never denied it) but it's not the *same* subtext it would be if the characters weren't who they were.
I think we might be talking at cross purposes here. The sexism (or anything else) in the subtext is not dependent on what Avon (or any other character) says or does in a particular situation, it is grounded in the roles that characters are given within the script and how those roles relate to an external ideological landscape. (Which may change over time - in 1978 I doubt if anyone other than a bra-burning Spare Rib reader would even have noticed that Deliverance might contain sexist elements. Many people wouldn't even have heard of the term.)
That's why I say forget the characters. It doesn't matter if the cowboy shoots the indian, talks to the indian, or simply rides on by. The cowboy is still a cowboy, the indian is still an indian (or a Native American in these more enlightened times). So recasting the Avon role does not alter the essential power relationship, only the way in which it is expressed.
Things become altered when, say, a cowboy meets another cowboy, or cowboy meets cowgirl. Or cow. Replacing Avon with Blake or Kirk does not alter the ideological significance of the situation, replacing him with Jenna or Cally (or Mr Humphries) does.
I said before, I do think having *Avon* in the role subverts it quite nicely
No. He might subvert our expectations of the way in which the power relation is expressed, but he does not subvert the power relation itself. He can't, any more than the cowboy can stop being a cowboy and become an indian. He is trapped there. As are we all.
(In fact, he doesn't even subvert any norms of expression at all - he behaves just like a decent chap who went to Eton. Or, more properly, an ideologically sanctioned image of a decent chap who went to Eton. If he'd slapped Meegat around then he'd have conformed to a related - but likewise sanctioned - image, of an outright cad who should never have been allowed on the cricket pitch.)
Take out Meegat - naive, desperately, embarrasingly in earnest, but still with total composure - and put in Piri. Or consider Xena or Callisto. Or Sally from 'Third Rock from the Sun'.
There would still be the same sexual subtext and assumptions in all of
these
versions (personally the Harold/Callisto one appeals to me) but they're differently twisted in each case.
A lot depends on how much importance you place on the differences. The differences emerge from the particularities of the characters. The similarities are rooted in something deeper and wider - ideology. If you want to study the characters, then yes, you look at the differences. If your attention is focussed on ideological values embedded within a text (eg, to assess it in terms of its didacticism) , you turn to the common ground and ignore the differences. They're too distracting.
It is, of course, quite possible to look at both at the same time, and enjoy them both though in very different ways.
Neil
Neil Faulkner wrote:
Things become altered when, say, a cowboy meets another cowboy, or cowboy meets cowgirl. Or cow. Replacing Avon with Blake or Kirk does not alter the ideological significance of the situation, replacing him with Jenna or Cally (or Mr Humphries) does.
Bearing in mind that I don't know who Mr. Humphries is...
It sounds very much to me as if you are saying that any time there is a transaction between a man and a woman of unequal power, sexism must by definition exist. Since there is no such thing as equal power, that will mean every m-f transaction is sexist. That's far too broad a definition of sexism for my taste. I prefer to reserve it for the expression of the idea that one gender or the other is or should be considered better or superior to the other; otherwise we risk defining persons by their gender and nothing else.
Mistral
-
Mistral -
Neil Faulkner -
Sally Manton