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