Blakes7 September 2001

blakes7@lists.lysator.liu.se

56 participants
222 discussions

Fwd: Re: Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Sally Manton 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

After I wrote: <after all, Tarrant didn't trust him either; they're neither of them that stupid).> Dana wrote: <It's at times like this I'm grateful the United States has a Fifth Amendment> Does the Fifth Amendment cover when we can hear you *thinking* it at the top of your mental voice? :-) _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

2 1

Fwd: [B7L] Re: Avon and Gan (was Dinosaurs)
by Sally Manton 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

Helen wrote: <Wouldn't it have been something if Gan had made it to third season, and Anna was also his woman?> Wildly unlikely coincidence being after all an integral tool of fiction ... I still think they should've made Del and Dev Tarrant relatives. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

2 1

Re: [B7L] decentring morality, correction
by Mac4781＠aol.com 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

> That he was idealistic doesn't rule out that he was also fatalistic. I was speeding out my reply so quickly that my brain ended up three thoughts ahead of my fingers. That should read: "That he was idealistic doesn't rule out that he was also a fanatic. Carol

1 0

Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Mac4781＠aol.com 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

Sally wrote: > Blake is *not* fanatical here, he's fatalistic, and jaded and more > detached ("doing relatively decent things for relatively decent reasons"). We'll have to agree to disagree on this (example of Blake's fanaticism below). > But as Boucher said himself "he was idealistic enough to be taken in by the > girl," to stop her killing Tarrant rather than letting him escape - and to > trust that Avon would hear him out. That he was idealistic doesn't rule out that he was also fatalistic. > As with the fact that it was Avon pulling the trigger ("I wanted > to shoot him in the back, but they wouldn't let me") it was possibly > something over which the author had limited control - (bearing in mid that > the actor's memories may be as subject to scrutiny as the writer's, of > course, but given that it was Gareth's demand for Blake to die, it makes > sense.) I don't understand what you're saying here. Yes, Chris knew Gareth wanted Blake to die. And Chris apparently agreed that Avon could be the one to shoot him (but not in the back). But there were any number of ways Boucher could have set that up. The question is why did BLAKE play out the way it did. > That has to do with his loss of his judgement re trust: there is *nothing* > in 'Blake' that indicates it has anything to do with fanaticism. In Blake's own words (and I'm sure you're familiar with his zealous delivery): DEVA: These stupid games you insist on playing, Blake, will get someone killed eventually. BLAKE: I have to test each one myself. Blake goes on to admit that Deva could do the testing via computer, but he still won't let go of the need to test them himself. Blake's inability to sway from a course that he recognizes to be dangerous and unnecessary suggests a "person with excessive attachment to an activity," which is one of my dictionary's definitions of a fanatic. > well (Blake's warm relationship with Deva, bearing in mind how clearly we > were told Travis had no friends; You're losing me here. This has nothing to do with having friends or trusting. It has to do with what fuels behavior. > The idea appears to me to be sort of like sleight of hand - get the viewer > to doubt Blake for a while, to think exactly what Mac4781@aol suggests - > then aha! - show that's he's still a genuine rebel, still one of the Good, > if badly Battered Guys - You're losing me here as well. This has nothing to do with whether Blake was genuinely a bounty hunter or still a rebel. The scene that confirms Blake's irrational behavior doesn't come until near the end when the audience *knows* he's still one of the Good Guys. The question is why would Boucher put that in there. He could have given Blake a rational reason for needing to test possible recruits. Instead he presented his behavior as irrational. > [a] trying to make it seem - even subliminally - that Blake was somehow > 'worthy' of being killed does a rather horrible, almost cheapening hatchet > job on the tragedy Chris has given us. Why do you have 'worthy' in quotes? I never said Blake was somehow 'worthy' of being killed. I pointed out things I saw as parallels between STAR ONE and BLAKE. I pointed out that Chris just might have had it in the back of his mind that he needed to tone down the extent of Avon's culpability. Nowhere did I say Blake deserved to die. Carol

1 0

Re: Avon and Gan (was Dinosaurs)
by Helen Krummenacker 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

Neil wrote: >Anyway, Avon's not a bit like Gan. They were both depressed about their girlfriends (supposedly) being killed by the Federation. Hey, do you think Gan's woman was actually a top secret agent? -- Harriet Wouldn't it have been something if Gan had made it to third season, and Anna was also his woman?

1 0

Re: Dinosaurs (was Re:[B7L] Crichton (was decentring morality)]
by Betty Ragan 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

Harriet wrote: > Hey, do you think Gan's woman was actually a top secret agent? Maybe Anna was also running Gan... -- Betty Ragan ** bragan(a)nrao.edu ** http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~bragan Not speaking for my employers, officially or otherwise. "Seeing a rotten picture for the special effects is like eating a tough steak for the smothered onions..." -- Isaac Asimov

1 0

Fwd: Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Sally Manton 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

Dana wrote: <It could also be a class thing--Alphas are commissioned officers as soon as they finish basic training?> Well, the Federation's forces are stretched thin, especially in the 3rd & 4th series. I can see a historical parallel actually - towards the end of WW2, teenage boys from the Hitler Youth (a paramilitary organisation) were given officer status and commanded even younger boys in the fighting - and if I recall correctly, could and did consider shooting other boys for 'desertion'. A case of must needs, and quite applicable if the Federation's cannon-fodder cupboard is bare (indoctrinated children from paramilitary organisations are easier to mould into Death Squad types and Arlens, methinks). _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

Re: [B7L] Crichton (was decentring morality)
by Sally Manton 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

Neil: <If the B7 crew were all dinosaurs, what ones would they be?> and Una: <Avon - Barney.> Nah, he's too much like Gan. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

4 3

Fwd: Re: [B7L] decentring morality
by Sally Manton 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

Mac4781(a)aol.com writes: <Re the eye injury/reference to Travis in the script: Chris knew Blake was going to die at Avon's hands. And he was still expecting a fifth season when he wrote this.> Agreed. <He might have been setting it up so that Avon wouldn't look so dastardly for killing Blake. He might have wanted Blake to appear to have followed Travis' path of fanaticism. In word and deed Blake is often shown to be more fanatical than rational in the episode. And that leads to monumental failure.> But - with all due respect - this and the following *is* a good example of what has been discussed as the danger of trying to decide what the author's intention actually were. Notwithstanding what Calle says about taking the author's word for his intentions - which I agree with to an extent - let's take it bit by bit. Boucher definitely did want to show the dangers of fanaticism in Blake - *in Star One* (the fact that IMO he muffed it by one-sidedness notwithstanding). Blake is *not* fanatical here, he's fatalistic, and jaded and more detached ("doing relatively decent things for relatively decent reasons"). But as Boucher said himself "he was idealistic enough to be taken in by the girl," to stop her killing Tarrant rather than letting him escape - and to trust that Avon would hear him out. Actually, in several interviews, GT has also said it was originally *his* idea that GP Blake be "a rebel, but a real rebel, the Che Guavera type" and "dirty" ... "scarred, vicious, but a hero still fighting for the right things." As with the fact that it was Avon pulling the trigger ("I wanted to shoot him in the back, but they wouldn't let me") it was possibly something over which the author had limited control - (bearing in mid that the actor's memories may be as subject to scrutiny as the writer's, of course, but given that it was Gareth's demand for Blake to die, it makes sense.) <And that leads to monumental failure. > That has to do with his loss of his judgement re trust: there is *nothing* in 'Blake' that indicates it has anything to do with fanaticism. He accepts Arlen when he shouldn't, and lets Tarrant escape when he shouldn't. ("I find it difficult to trust. It's a failing, I admit -!") <Travis' final act was an attempt to wipe out the human race. Blake's final act is to wipe out his Gauda Prime base and followers.> And Avon's final act was to wipe out his ship and followers as well, so it would appear rather like the house that Jack built. Except that the cases are completely *completely* different. Travis's *deliberate* act of attempted mass murder has absolutely nothing in common with Blake's mistaken trust - in Arlen and in the Avon he no longer knew - that led to the GP catastophe (I still think he was right not to trust Tarrant right off, after all, Tarrant didn't trust him either; they're neither of them that stupid). Actually, Chris *appears* to play games with the audience re the Travis thing - there's the ruined eye and the increased coldness and detachment, but at the same time, there's the clear indicators of what separated them as well (Blake's warm relationship with Deva, bearing in mind how clearly we were told Travis had no friends; the way his major trust mistakes - Arlen and Avon - are because he *did* give it rather than withhold it). The idea appears to me to be sort of like sleight of hand - get the viewer to doubt Blake for a while, to think exactly what Mac4781@aol suggests - then aha! - show that's he's still a genuine rebel, still one of the Good, if badly Battered Guys - then show *Tarrant* thinking what the audience did - then - oh god! have the second aha! where Tarrant agains learns what the audience did stuffed up - and then there's no chance for a third one. It's like a warped card trick, where *we* can see that the joker's really still the king, but no one on screen can. <And Avon is the man who rid the series of two "fanatics" who were dangerous to others.> See above. Blake is no more dangerous to his followers than Avon is to his - and in fact, since it was simply a series of mistakes, he is no more dangerous than any leader who makes horrendous mistakes. He and Avon made them before (as did Tarrant in his breif leadership spells) but were luckier in the consequences those times (aka the series still had a way to go). They are *all* dangerous to others, but not even vaguely does that make them worth 'ridding the series' of. Again, going back to CB, he makes it fairly clear in both 'The Inside story' and 'The programme Guide' that he saw Avon killing Blake as a horrendous mistake and a dreadful act - "Avon was left with one ideal human being, one ideal of certainty, and that was Blake. He then found himself in a situation where Blake appeared to have betrayed him, and he couldn't take it ... there was no doubt in his mind, actually, about Blake. He really believed the guy was honest."* (Prog Guide) "Avon having killed Blake, he becomes protective of him. He's quite insane at this point ..." (Inside Story). - and one for which Avon will have to atone - "Having killed Blake, within Avon there is now an unavoidable sense of responsibility ... he's stuck with having to do what Blake would have done." (Inside story) So it is apparent that Boucher does *not* think Avon's action in killing Blake was 'not as dastardly' - in fact, he appears - both on camera and from his own words - to be setting it up as as horrible and unacceptable as possible (in which Gareth assisted by making sure it was as gory and horrible a shooting as possible) while retaining the audience's sympathy for Avon - in this even-more-dreadful-situation-than-Rumours position as well. This makes a lot more sense to me for two reasons: [a] trying to make it seem - even subliminally - that Blake was somehow 'worthy' of being killed does a rather horrible, almost cheapening hatchet job on the tragedy Chris has given us. WWhat makes it soooo agonising is that no one deserved what happened to them - Blake *least* of at all; [a] if there was going to be a 5th season, since the dramatic possibilities are so much richer if Avon has done something that by his own and other people's standards is actually unforgiveable. I do think that, had there been a S5, Chris - like any writer worth his pen and ink - would have milked that agony good and proper. _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

2 1

Fwd: Dinosaurs (was Re:[B7L] Crichton (was decentring morality)]
by Sally Manton 29 Sep '01

29 Sep '01

Neil: <Anyway, Avon's not a bit like Gan.> and Harriet: <They were both depressed about their girlfriends (supposedly) being killed by the Federation.> and they both tended to argue with Blake, then end up doing what Blake wanted them to, even when they didn't think it was a good idea ... _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Blakes7 September 2001