This is a common misinterpretation I keep running into in the reviews. There are no positive, good role-models in this movie, only bad examples. He is out of step, but that's a point Wertmüller is making.
He's not a scholarly, pure, Marxist communist who always has the right answers and actions. He's uneducated, like Stalin was, and doesn't fully get it, as we see in the scene where he tells her he's confused by her big words, and he feels threatened by them. Stalin, who didn't care for democracy or egalitarianism, crushed all opposition and ruled through fear. He supports communism because he's poor and sees it as a way to gain power, not because he is interested in establishing a completely level playing field. He is out for himself, just like the capitalist woman.
When on the island, he is fully in the role of the capitalist oppressor. It seems, when he starts out being rude to the woman, he's trying to teach her a lesson about the cruel treatment the rich bourgeoisie impose upon the poor. He points out how the rich needlessly waste things the poor want (cigarettes) or even need (apples and oranges) and how the worker/manager setup is really slave/master in nature.
Although he may have intended to, he never gives up this role as the oppressor. He beats her like a slave and eventually forces her into prostitution. In the Manifesto it is pointed out how prostitution is a product of capitalism, because it is often resorted to against the will of the woman in order to survive. It also points out how women are seen as a mere means of production(babies AND cheaper labor) by the capitalist. Give everybody what they need to survive and all sex that is left is consensual.
He is also a stereotypical Sicilian man, so this makes his character more believable to the Italian audience. But stereotypes are fatalistic, something revolutionaries like Marx are not. The name-calling in this movie is typical of Leninism which places people in roles. Marx welcomed upper-class converts while Lenin called them parasites, etc. Name-calling only splits up the commune. The Manifesto explains how throughout history, the ruling class perpetuates the lie that everything has always been how it is now, and if it were different, it would fall apart. A lot of people take from this film, the idea that women are essentially whores who will do anything to survive, and men are strong hunter-gatherers who are destined by evolutionary processes to be dominant. Marxist communism, as well as many religions (Communism actually started as religious movements), taught that humans should break free from survival of the fittest, and care for every human being. The "love" on the island is not love at all. It is the opium of the masses, the acceptance of the established order (she - a system-milking slave; he - enjoying ownership of a hot babe). They "love" one another only for what function/work they fulfill. They do not love them for being who they are.
reply
share
lubin-freddy
15 years ago
Let me add to dougalsii's excellent previous post.
In addition to what he/she wrote, there's another point. Much of feminist ideology of the period, late '60s and '70s centered on the understanding (coming from what they called then "consciousness raising") that both the right AND the left equally exploited women. So it was very common to read critiques of the left, and its own history of exploiting women. (Who was the Black Panther leader who, when asked about the position of women in the movement, answered "prone"?)
But again, good post, about an ideologically complex film.
"Sometimes you have to take the bull by the tail, and face the truth" - G. Marx
reply
share
conedust
14 years ago
Interesting post. One of the most amusing things in the film was the marked contrast between Giancarlo's stated politics and his actual core beliefs. He claims to be a communist, but is fantastically conservative and really only desires dominance over others.
That said, I think that Swept Away isn't really a political film. Its characters make a great show of their affiliations and the political philosophies on display certainly do reflect class differences, but it seems to me that the film is primarily a psychological exploration of gender and power relationships -- with half-baked and deeply ironic political rhetoric as a sort of comic window-dressing
Early in the film, we learn that Giancarlo and Mariangela each have political philosophies common to their relative stations in life. He, of the lower classes, is naturally a communist. She, of the upper, is right-wing (note that both cling to philosophies that reassure them of their own importance in the grand scheme of things). We hear little of Giancarlo's politics at the outset, but must listen to Mariangela natter on endlessly about hers. This is a device -- it inclines us to sympathize with his contempt for her. To some extent, at least initially...
On the island, however, she slowly abandons her political rhetoric, while Giancarlo is never able to do the same. Though he constructs his own version of paradise by violence and sheer force of will, he is never able to abandon fundamental insecurities. So he destroys paradise in order to "test" his fantasy against the world in which he felt forever inadequate. And he fails, of course.
This is a metaphor for male pride, vanity and insecurity -- and also for the stinging intensity of class envy, I suppose. But I think Swept Away is ultimately more concerned with the subtle reciprocity of power in "traditional" romantic relationships. Giancarlo, once removed from the confines of civilization, finds it surprisingly easy to use his survival skills and physical power to bend a proud, beautiful and seemingly unattainable woman to his will. And while the sense of power and self-worth he gains in doing this is satisfying to him, it blinds him to his own ever-deepening dependence on her.
Back in civilized society, where he is no longer able to dominate her, he finds himself utterly at her mercy. This is not a function of class or gender so much as it is of his inability to understand himself -- or her.
You must have been so afraid, Cassie... Then you saw a cop.
reply
share
humminbird9
13 years ago
Just watched this again. Your explanation rings truer to me than the pure political allegory. I had gut feelings on many of your points that you articulated for me. Thank you!
reply
share