My problem stems from my feeling that the Adama boys are two very anti-democratic men. Of course this is one of the main driving story lines of the entire BSG enterprise, the question of how you maintain your democratic ideals in a time of war and conflict and Adama has always come down on the side of thinking that the needs of the military expediency trump democracy. This season, however, as the threat of war and/or destruction is minimized, Adama has shown even more willingness to disregard civilian authority and act unilaterally, going so far as to arrest the acting Quorum chair because he took a vote that Adama didn't like. I will admit that I can't always follow the minutia of the political doings on BSG, so correct me if I am wrong on this: Adama issued an order that all ships co-operate with the implanting of Cylon technology, the Quorum voted 11 to 1 that captains could decide on a ship-by-ship basis whether to co-operate, Adama had the Quorum chair arrested for treason, sent Marines to enforce his order, and installed his son as chair of the Quorum. Ummm...that's good tyranny.
I don't really care whether or not Adama is right about a Cylon alliance. Yes, I understand that I am supposed to think that anyone who hates Cylons is judging an individual Cylon on the actions of the collective Cylon race and that this is wrong, wrong, wrong, but the duly elected government of the fleet voted to leave the decision of Cylon co-operation up to the individual
Anyway, this post is inspired by a poll over at LGM wherein a vast majority of respondents are "Approve"ing of Laura Roslin's job performance. WTF, people? As of now, President Laura Roslin has abdicated her duties as President, but has conveniently retained the title so that she can issue proclamations from her lover in her name. In the past, she has resisted elections, arrested her opponent when she did hold elections, tried her most visible opposition for treason, and caved to military authority on every occasion of conflict. I'm not even going to mention her fanatical -- and ultimately wrong (oh I know they'll find the some planet they'll call Earth in the last episode) -- religious ravings. What, in Gods' names, could there be to approve of?
9 comments:
I agree with you that Adama, Roslin, et al have been acting in a messed up way. But I think the episode is making the point that they reap what they sow. After all, Gaeta and Lee have both made the kinds of points that you made. They both have always functioned as the (deeply flawed) conscience of the show. And Adama and Roslin have always been messed up in the same autocratic way.
You should read Annalee Newitz's post on io9 about the last episode:
http://io9.com/5143404/why-is-gaeta-so-bad
I also agree with your analysis. However, I think that at this point the series has moved away from ideas and ideology and become more of a character study. In other words, I am not so sure that the writers are asking us to approve of Adama's autocratic style and anti-democratic tendencies as much as they are asking us to examine him as a deeply-flawed character. (For that matter, every character on the show--with the possible exception of Helo--is positively riddled with flaws and contradictions.)
I'll repeat something I just said to S.--which is, I admit, totally me talking out of my ass with nothing to back this up. I feel like BSG is a lot like NYPD Blue in this regard. The Andy Sipowicz character was a mean drunk, a racist, and prone to brutality. But I don't think by making Sipowicz the show's (sympathetic) protagonist Steven Bochco was condoning racism or police brutality; the show was set in a police precinct, but was about the characters. (On the other hand, I am less sure about a show like 24, which many people seem to think is actually espousing some very reactionary ideas. I wouldn't know, as I don't watch the show myself.) Anyway, I guess what I am saying is that I have less of a hard time dealing with the issues you describe because I don't really feel like I am being asked to be on board with tyranny as a precondition of enjoying the show. Adama, Roslin et al. are fucked up, but I don't feel like I have to be on their side.
So anyway, yeah, you are totally right on. And holy shit--I just checked out the poll and it's crazy how many people say they "approve" of Roslin's performance.
My problem with the "character study" (and it is my problem) is that BSG is an action/drama. I'm pretty sure that in the big showdown, I am supposed to have a rooting interest. I know I don't want to watch a shoot-em up wherein I don't care who wins.
And I kind of disagree with you guys, although I'd really like to agree. I think the writers very much want me rooting for the "good guys," no matter how flawed. In the final episode, where Roslin dies/officially retires and so does Adama, there will be words along the lines of "now that the crisis has passed, we can have democracy again," which is a sentiment I am just not down with. At least that's what I see coming and thus my problem.
SS,
thanks for the link, but my gods! Gaeta is "evil," turned to the "wrong side," etc. The comments are worse. People are uabshedly in love with Adama, Starbuck, and Tigh.
From the link:
I think what's brilliant about "The Oath" is that Gaeta's perfidy may have the unintended consequence of saving the Fleet, just not in the way he expected. In the face of his mutiny, many of the characters who have been wallowing in ethical ambiguity suddenly sharpen up and remember their true duties. Starbuck returns to heroic soldier form when she rescues Lee from mutineers. Adama and Tigh reaffirm their bromantic love for each other as they fight side-by-side for the freedom of the Fleet - and for peace with the cylons. Even the tormented Tyrol returns to form, aiding the resistance against Zarek and Gaeta, risking his life to save president Roslin and Baltar.
Again, unless I missed something it is our "heroes" that are fighting against democratic freedom. The article also says that it was a mistake for stopping Tigh from rigging the election against Baltar because Baltar was "weak and ineffectual." Baltar, for all his flaws, was the gods damn democratically elected leader of the humans. Perhaps if the military and out-going political leadership had supported him, things wouldn't have turned out so horribly.
I gotta say it, but it looks like people are willing to support the "heroes" whether they're fraking toasters one day or fighting on the side of toasters the next. People will "follow" the heroes pretty much without thought.
I am trying to understand what is bothering you. You cite a couple of problems with the fans--the high "approval ratings" for Roslin, the people who "follow heroes pretty much without thought." I couldn't agree more that this kind of blind acceptance of flawed characters is problematic.
I am less clear on why it is a problem that the writers want you to "root for"/care about Adama/Roslin/Starbuck. I really don't think that's the same as saying they want you to "root against" democracy. The show is completely shot through with moral ambiguity. Making certain characters dominant is not the same as making them "heroes." None of those characters is a hero in the purest sense of the word. The show just isn't set up in that kind of black-and-white way.
Absolutely, Adama is cast as the "good guy"--which is to say the guy we are "supposed to" hope prevails in the end. But I think it is also true that the writers make it very clear that he is not purely "good." You would have to be an unthinking, uncritical fan indeed to not see the problems with his actions. IMHO the writers beat you over the head with that, as well.
It would be easy enough to go against the grain of fan response and "root for" the other side. The writers have certainly left you a few openings here and there to allow you to sympathize with other characters. But eventually you are going to come up against the same problem: it's nearly impossible to fully identify with any character (again, Helo being the only possible exception here) because every last one of them has some major flaw that prevents them from being "heroic."
For whatever reason, I guess I am okay with that.
I think that, like twitter, I will have to start following Battlestar Galactica because I'm tired of not getting the references. Kudos of reminding me again! Really, I'm gonna start watching it soon.
Maybe I am too much of a Star Wars fanboy to like my sci fi characters this flawed.
I wonder though if you aren't giving the writers too much credit. Look at the comments on that link ss gave me. I think you will see that 99% of the commenters, who I am assuming are decently sophisticated sci fi geeks, also seem to think that Gaeta has gone "bad" and are hoping that the "good guys" sort out his hash. There is nothing wrong, of course, with interpreting fiction differently from the intentions of the author, but I guess I am coming to the point where I see Adama less as a good man struggling to do what he thinks is best (if not always "right") and more of a 'W'ian "whatever I think is best is right" type guy.
Maybe I am reading too much into it, but i like my military subservient to my civilian control. I am afraid that there are a whole lot of sci fi geeks who are getting a completely different message.
Lastly, I side with Gaeta and the democrats, but I don't think the writers are going to throw me much in the way of love there. I'm pretty sure that with even Baltar on board with the "good guys," Gaeta and Zeric are going to be portrayed as straight-up baddies. Maybe not, maybe the writers will surprise me, but with only five episodes left (sorry Jen), I don't think that is going to happen. Crush "rebellion," crush remaining cylon enemies, have new generation of cylons born, resolve whatever there is left to resolve with 6 and Baltar leading the hybrid child through the magic gate, find "Earth," have a few tears, the end.
I have a problem with that.
Ah, I wondered if part of your Adama problem might stem from uncomfortable W parallels. I can understand that. I find Adama an interesting character, but I am never really able to strongly identify with military leaders.
I would argue that it's true that Gaeta is right AND that Gaeta has "gone bad." He's fighting the good fight against a president and military leader who are subverting democracy (yay, go Gaeta!). But to accomplish this he has teamed up with Zerek (who used to be one of my favorite outsider characters--you know I loves me some rebels--but who now seems to be less about revolutionary ideals than about the pursuit of power) and has thus been dragged places he probably did not want to go. He clearly had pangs about the people who were murdered in the process of seizing power. He was in on the plan to round up the cylons, but did he intend for them to be beaten? (possibly) murdered? His ideals are right on (I am surprised that so many fans are apparently missing that), but he is hopelessly naive. What did he think would happen when he instigated this process? It seems clear that he thought that just because he was "right" that everything would be okay. Now he is reaping what he sowed. As is Adama. (although I agree with you that Adama has been more consistently "wrong" than Gaeta)
I actually like the moral ambiguity of the show. The characters don't get to be just "good" or "evil" and they have to deal with the consequences of their actions. It's uncomfortable, but in a good way, I think.
Ash: "I actually like the moral ambiguity of the show. The characters don't get to be just "good" or "evil" and they have to deal with the consequences of their actions. It's uncomfortable, but in a good way, I think."
I love the moral ambiguity of the show compared to the original and almost everything else on television.
I struggle appreciating the moral ambiguity of a show wherein all the main characters have done something I consider significantly immoral - like Dave, I am wondering left if there is ANYONE to root for (including the society as a whole). That probably says more about me than the show, however.
THAT said, I think the actual article on Gaeda is pretty spot-on. The problem is not the article's conclusion, but what is implied about human nature and/or human societies - that standing up for one's moral principles is stupid because it gets you in serious trouble (trying to avoid major plot spoilers here) and often makes things worse. Oh, and that, yes, ditching democracy when stressed in favor of a gun is the way to go.
Or am I reading this too negatively?
Post a Comment