(no subject)
Apr. 9th, 2011 12:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatEh..there are things I should be doing today, did manage to get the laundry in to the mat, and do my delicate items (such as the cashmere/cotton blend sweaters which cannot be put in the dryer). Got up at 7.
Watched Merlin S3 Finale, and the series finally progressed. It's no longer this episodic series that ends the same way each time. It actually pulled all its errant plot threads together. My quibble? Same as the last two seasons, we have one nice female character and two evil ones, or a series of evil female guest-starring characters..aka witches, and all the true heroes are guys. Campbell's Heroes Journey at it's shiny best. Watching it I couldn't help but wonder what it would be like to switch all the gender roles. To be fair, this has always been my quibble with the Arthurian Legends. So it really isn't Merlin's fault - the legend the show is based on - is sexist. Also what's with all the Arthurian reboots? Makes me want to rent Mists of Avalon.
That said? The finale was rather enjoyable. And I agree Bradley James is quite good as Arthur. He manages to get across a great deal with his eyes.
While at the mat, doing the delicates, I was reading about the making of Scream 4 in EW, and realized once again that being a writer in Hollywood must really suck at times. Even if you are a fairly well-known and highly paid one. No wonder so many of them go do comic books as a sideline or high-tail it to tv. Poor Kevin Williamson (you know him as the scribe of Dawson's Creek and Vamp Diaries, along with the original Scream film). He comes up with this brilliant idea for Scream 4, so brilliant he's penned Scream 5 and 6 off of it in quick outlines. Calls up the producer - Weinstein, who also thinks it is brilliant, and manages to get all the original stars of the series to sign on plus horror auteur Wes Craven - because they see it as brilliant. BUT. Somewhere along the line the producer, Weinstein, decides the writer's vision isn't good enough and tinkers with it. He doesn't trust his writer to deliver a good script on time. The film is slated to go in less than two years. They fight constantly, the producer decides to hire another writer to punch up the dialogue (the writer who had written Scream 3), the producer forces Williamson to rewrite portions of the script, change whole sections, at one point the director is rewriting sections. And to date? The original script-writer, Williamson has not seen a finished version of the film and is not talking to his former friend, the Producer (Weinstein). Unfortunately, this happens all the time, apparently. It's standard operating practice.
Watched Merlin S3 Finale, and the series finally progressed. It's no longer this episodic series that ends the same way each time. It actually pulled all its errant plot threads together. My quibble? Same as the last two seasons, we have one nice female character and two evil ones, or a series of evil female guest-starring characters..aka witches, and all the true heroes are guys. Campbell's Heroes Journey at it's shiny best. Watching it I couldn't help but wonder what it would be like to switch all the gender roles. To be fair, this has always been my quibble with the Arthurian Legends. So it really isn't Merlin's fault - the legend the show is based on - is sexist. Also what's with all the Arthurian reboots? Makes me want to rent Mists of Avalon.
That said? The finale was rather enjoyable. And I agree Bradley James is quite good as Arthur. He manages to get across a great deal with his eyes.
While at the mat, doing the delicates, I was reading about the making of Scream 4 in EW, and realized once again that being a writer in Hollywood must really suck at times. Even if you are a fairly well-known and highly paid one. No wonder so many of them go do comic books as a sideline or high-tail it to tv. Poor Kevin Williamson (you know him as the scribe of Dawson's Creek and Vamp Diaries, along with the original Scream film). He comes up with this brilliant idea for Scream 4, so brilliant he's penned Scream 5 and 6 off of it in quick outlines. Calls up the producer - Weinstein, who also thinks it is brilliant, and manages to get all the original stars of the series to sign on plus horror auteur Wes Craven - because they see it as brilliant. BUT. Somewhere along the line the producer, Weinstein, decides the writer's vision isn't good enough and tinkers with it. He doesn't trust his writer to deliver a good script on time. The film is slated to go in less than two years. They fight constantly, the producer decides to hire another writer to punch up the dialogue (the writer who had written Scream 3), the producer forces Williamson to rewrite portions of the script, change whole sections, at one point the director is rewriting sections. And to date? The original script-writer, Williamson has not seen a finished version of the film and is not talking to his former friend, the Producer (Weinstein). Unfortunately, this happens all the time, apparently. It's standard operating practice.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-04-09 09:58 pm (UTC)you can love these shows and still be critical of them, point out that they are pushing a white male view. Predominately male. And predominately white. That has got to be picked at.
If we aren't critical, it won't change. Merlin is fun, but it's depiction of women is sexist.
Oh I didn't mean that we couldn't be critical, just that we come from sexist centuries and our cultural heritage (myths, legends, literature)is based on phallocratie (andocracy in English?).
You won't change the Arthurian legend now, just like you won't change other legends from Middle Ages or Shakespeare's Othello, or ancient Mythologies or the Bible or Tolkien's vision! No matter the versions, you can't say it's this and do something else entirely.
But if we create new legends and mythologies these days that are still sexist, now that's another story. Merlin isn't a great show, but we can't expect from it to pretend, on the one hand, that it takes place in the the "dark ages" yet, on the other hand, suddenly change the essence of the legend and the "spirit" of the knighthood times, especially since the premise is about how sorcerer Merlin helped young Arthur Pendragon to become the great kind he is supposed to be. It plays on the legend, is rather unfaithful to the oral tradition and the medieval literature (Chrétien de Troyes and Thomas Malory)by changing a few things but it doesn't create a new myth, it's still about "the one" as the male one. Basically it cannot not depict women in a sexist way.
The other shows you mentioned aren't based on a previous work so it's different. They reflect nowadays. We're forging new legends, and television may be the main blacksmith indeed. Not sure I agree with you about the equal sexism of all those shows (not saying that Buffy was free from any sexism but they tried something nevertheless with a "the one" that was female), but I agree that we still live in a men's world, and many of the "old views" and structures we've inherited are still pregnant (does the word work this way too in English?) and there's still a LOT of work to do!
The question that is haunting me now is: can we really re-invent ourselves and create new legends or are we so impregnated by certain notions(the notions of "passion" and "marriage" for instance!) that we are doomed to repeat the same old stories peu ou prou?
PS: You know, what irritates me the most about Merlin is the fact that new generations may know the Arthurian legend only through this mediocre work and think that this is it, without even supposing that there might be superior versions of the legend.
no subject
Date: 2011-04-10 02:21 pm (UTC)You won't change the Arthurian legend now, just like you won't change other legends from Middle Ages or Shakespeare's Othello, or ancient Mythologies or the Bible or Tolkien's vision! No matter the versions, you can't say it's this and do something else entirely.
Not change maybe, but we can certainly re-interpret. The Arthurian Legends, being legends they already have been interpreted. Not the same as the legends form the Middle Ages.
The Arthurian Legend actually predates The Middle Ages. It dates back to the period before the Roman invasion and Christianity.
And you can find references to it in The Mabinogi. The difficulty is that monks translated the records and reinterpreted them - taking the Celtic legend and making it a Christian one. This happened a lot - when one country invaded another they would take that countries stories, myths and legends, and religious beliefs and twist them to incorporate their own beliefs. As a result the original Arthurian Legend about a King who sacrificed himself to a mother goddess is translated to a King who sacrifices himself in battle to a more male one. The priestess Morgana is changed. Each version changes her - in some she is Arthur's half-sister through his mother Igraine, and in other's such as Merlin and Camelot she is his half-sister through his father, Uther. Barrowmore's Excalibur actually is the closest to the Welsh Myth handed down through the ages. And remains my favorite. Guy Gaverial Kay also did a version of the Mabinogi in his Wandering Gyre series.
In the Arthurian Legends, Arthur was the King of Wales - Wales was Camelot. He is actually reported to be buried according to the legends in a cavern somewhere in Northern Wales. (When I was an undergrad in College in the 1980s, I traveled to Wales and studied the original legends at the National Library in Aberwysthe and in Cardiff, as well as interviewed and spoke with experts on the Mabinogi. I had a minor in Myth, Epic and Folklore and my focus was on Welsh Mythology. It was over 20 years ago, so my memory may be hazy in places.) But the Arthurian Legend is not a legend of the Middle Ages, no matter what the Monks like to believe. It is older than that and goes back to a matriarchial period - the old religion is the mother goddess or the religion of the Ancient Celts which predates Christianity, the new religion - Christianity or the religion of the Romans - who invaded the British Isles...is what took over.
The legend of Arthur was changed in the Middle Ages to reflect Christianity in a good light. As is true with most legends and myths - we do not know what the original story was. It has been lost because of all the tinkering.
What this means is there is nothing preventing us from re-imagining it or re-interpreting. Arthur can still be King, but he does not have to be the hero, and Morgana does not have to be the villain. Any more than Gwen must be the heroine, or Merlin male. Legends tend to be malleable things.
That's the difficulty with history actually - if we aren't careful it can turn into legend. There are for example historical records of Jesus' existence. But his story has fallen into religious myth and legend to such a degree that we no longer know fact from fantasy. This is also true of others, such as Mohammad, Buddha, Abraham. We rely on the writers to tell us the truth, but we don't question their veracity. And we have to.
So, I guess it depends on which version you wish to base your Arthurian tale on - the popular and more well known Morte D'Arthur or the lesser known tidbits scattered through the Welsh legends in the Mabinogi. The translations vary. (Shrugs)
As for Shakespeare - can we reinterpret Othello with an all female cast? Of course we can. Julie Taymor recently did a film version of The Tempest with Helen Mirren in the role of Prospero.
Does it change the meaning? Yes. But we can do it. Shakespeare cast the female roles with men back in the day. It's really no different than doing fanfic. Once the story is out in the world - those who read it and watch it, can play with it. Stories aren't stones - they can and do change with each teller.