I came here to post my critique of this very episode, and I am SO glad that I'm not the only one who was shocked and horrified. I was seriously disturbed afterward and the more I think about it, the worse it gets....
What got me is that the black actor has absolutely NO identity or agency beyond being a "slave": The episode opens with him acting out a scene of being beaten as slave, and then when he next appears, he brings the chairs to Dot and Phryne while saying his only 2 lines in the entire episode--something like, "you can sit here"--and then oddly stands behind them, like the servant slave he was playing. He's never questioned about the murder, never volunteers information about the victim, and has no meaningful interactions with *anyone* in the episode. And then out of nowhere, there's the bedroom scene where he's not just in the bed with Phryne, but is CHAINED like a slave and never says a word or moves.
Moreover, but he is also literally a slave in term of power dynamics: First of all, he’s entirely dependent on her as the rich investor bankrolling his movie, while he’s a bit part actor who is likely more underpaid than most of the others, given his race as well as his tiny role in the film. Then you have the optics that echo a very dark history: the sexual subjugation of black slaves to their owners, the rich woman with her exotic plaything (the butt slap was the clincher there), and his total impassivity in the bed suggests him being nothing more than a sex toy. Yes, Australia doesn't have the history of slavery that the U.S., Britain, and France have, but still, the 200+ years of global history behind all of this isn't exactly new.
And again, his lack of agency: there is no conversation or any interaction between him and Phryne that makes him even a vague character--even the most banal pillow talk would have been better than nothing. This is notable to me because in most, if not all, of the previous episodes, Phryne has met her men through conversations and various interactions at varying depths—whether a random Russian dance partner to her heart-to-heart with the spiritualist who lost his brother in the war. In fact, I thought she was going to hook up with the Australian actor—they had a definite spark between them when she met him at her dinner party, and having HIM chained to the bed would have been smartly subversive—after playing the supposedly powerful movie star and the hero in the film, he would have ended up a "slave" to her.
This episode is particularly saddening to me, because one of the reasons I’ve loved “Miss Fisher’s Murder Mysteries” is precisely because of its notably smart treatment to issues of race, class, and gender that goes beyond “the 1920s were a racist and misogynistic time” to ways that resonate today. Among the many examples of this include season 1’s episodes 6 and 7, where she falls for Lin Chung and the show tackles issues of immigration, economic and social clashes between cultures, and how people defy racialized stereotypes. And in the 2nd season, there was the Aboriginal family who worked for the circus and the struggles of an oppressed people to succeed, and most strikingly, the episode immediately before this centered around a murder that was motivated by a medical professor’s fear that his eugenics research on race and intelligence would be discredited by the skull of an African-American woman who graduated from college. And overall, the show continually pushes back against racial, class, and gender stereotypes: her hiring of Ces and Bert as professional partners despite their differences in social station and her continual work as a feminist.
So overall, episode 9 was very disheartening to see and left a bad taste in my mouth for sure.
reply
share
cosmic_surveyor
10 years ago
Eloquently written.
I wasn't disheartened. I never put Phryne on a Progressive pedestal. She has her tendencies towards progressivism. But that doesn't mean everything she does is driven by that.
Although the skin color is the focus of the argument, I think the other factors are more important: employer-employee power imbalance, and the lack of agency in the character on display.
The former persists in our society. It existed in her society and in her household. Her hedonism would therefore override any hint of revulsion at the abuse of such a relationship. Particularly if she sees from him a 'willing' participant.
The latter is the most troubling. I'm not certain if the writing, the shooting or the editing played a major role in the final portrait. If he was seen as an attentive employee of the film company, a handyman that helped out as needed, then his actions would fit.
Throughout the series, we've seen many portraits who tried to make the best of their situations. He would just be one of the many.
I was at a screening of a decent Central American movie. From beginning to nearly the end of the movie, only non-dark skinned Latinos and Latinas appeared. Then, boom, dark-skinned caricatures were shown that didn't add anything to the movie. I found that disturbing, and felt disheartened by the creators' actions. When I asked them why that little bit was conceptualized, they were oblivious to the insensitivity.
____________________
When animals forage, is it for grocery, hardware or medicine?
reply
share
onebluestocking
10 years ago
I'm here to comment on the same thing. OMG! Could they not have realized it would be offensive? I've really liked the show otherwise.
Write it down, put it in an envelope, tear it in half, throw it away and shut your face.
reply
share