Page - 114 - in JRFM - Journal Religion Film Media, Volume 02/02

114 | Alexander D. Ornella www.jrfm.eu 2016, 2/2, 99–122 tional female duty (cooking) and the notion that a vicar’s wife has the duty to support her ordained husband and contribute to parish life. At the same time, masculine power is rendered ineffective not just by Adam’s insecurities and clumsiness but also by the female vicars’ stealing the show from him. Even if he inhabits a position of power and authority as the head of the parish and the vicarage, Adam does not seem to hold either. Additionally, half of the women present at the party inhabit a traditionally masculine position of power, that of a vicar. But their behavior undermines stereotypical perceptions of both cleri- cal identity and femininity: they smoke, drink, and party. The partying in Rev. (2010–2014) has a subtly excessive and thus subversive undercurrent. Exces- sive drinking is still considered improper behavior for women, while it seems to be more acceptable for men. Most importantly, however, the women are, in effect, running the show. They are the show. Not caring about or sharing in Adam’s concerns about the curry and the late hour, they render masculine power ineffective. Season three introduces two new female members of the Church hierarchy, area dean Jill Mallory and diocesan secretary Geri Tennison. They plan to close down St Saviour’s for financial reasons. Unlike the other female characters working for the Church, Mallory and Tennison do not come across as overly sympathetic characters. They seem to “act masculine”, and appear closer to what is stereotypically labeled “mannish women” than to vibrantly celebratory female vicars who threaten existing power structures. Their presence in the show, then, seems to suggest that we are still stuck with relating masculinity with male bodies and femininity with female bodies and that something is at odds if female bodies “act” masculine. SUBVERSIONS AND RECONCILIATIONS Raewyn Connell argues that we cannot stop at noting that there are different masculinities but that we need to analyze how they are related to each other, operate, and construct alliances, or how one version of masculinity can domi- nate or be subordinate to others.46 Connell calls this play of domination and sub- ordination “hegemonic masculinity” and argues that “at any given time, one form of masculinity rather than others is culturally exalted”.47 BBC’s Rev. (2010–2014) exalts a loser type of masculinity embodied predom- inantly through the dreamy, naïve, clumsy, and not very authoritative Adam. All Adam seems to need is a hug and the acknowledgement and approval of someone he considers an authority figure. The same holds true for the other 46 Cf. Connell 2005, 37, 76–77. 47 Connell 2005, 77. For a critique of the concept of hegemonic masculinity cf. Jefferson 2002; Connell/ Messerschmidt 2005.