Alias politics

[vaznetti]

This is a little scattered, still but I've been mulling these points off and on. Spoilers for the S4 opener, although it's more to do with the structure of the story than individual points.

I was struck again watching the S4 opening by how important prostitution is to Sydney's job description in the CIA--there she is, only a few minutes in, flashing her panties at some chemist guy on a train. The fact that she never has sex with these men (Simon was an exception, but even there she put him off onscreen) must be down to the show--presumably the CIA wouldn't be impressed if she objected to having intercourse as part of her mission. She's represented as in control throughout these scenes--physically dominant in this one, for example, by standing while the chemist remains seated. He's helpless against the power of her panties, of course, and I suppose we're meant to despise him, although I'm not sure for what--for being deceived? for thinking that a woman wants to have sex with him while she's standing next to him giving every indication that she intends to do just that? for not being as physically perfect as she is?

I suspect that there's rather a lot to that last, and it makes me uneasy. But then, I've often claimed that I only watch the show for the prettiness, so this probably makes me a hypocrite. It is also the case that I have trouble with the cultural line between "owning your own desire" and "leading a man on," although not usually in my own life.

Anyway. Sydney's job involves feigning desire for men she doesn't desire (as does Nadia's, as did Irina's). Desire is not about honesty in this show, which may be why there are so many structural problems with the way the Syd/Vaughn relationship works within it.

This leaves aside the other major pattern of sexual relationships in this show--the wife as foreign enemy pattern--marriage is an extension of warfare. Even Emily, at the end, is on the verge of betraying her husband. I find this a fascinating motif, to be honest, but then, I'm a classicist. It is a little odd to find it so prominent in a modern drama--and a little less easy to excuse than it is when encountered among the Athenians. There's an old saw among Hellenists that in Ancient Greece marriage is to a girl what war is for a boy--but generally, they're talking about the process of coming of age. In Alias, marriage is just another kind of battle.


I'm not the only one to have noticed that this APO setup is extremely dubious--essentially, an arm of the CIA which answers to no one at all beyond its own members. It's possible that we're meant to flag this, to see APO as not only the image of SD-6 but as just as bad as SD-6; one wouldn't put Sloane in charge of an organization and expect it to remain innocuous. I think this leaves aside a larger issue, which is that the show is not interested in problematizing the use of American power to interfere in the internal politics of other states, and that it tends to judge individual actions on the individual rather than the action. We'll see how complicated the show is allowed to become, over the course of the season, especially as the actions of Jack and Arvin, with relation to their daughters and perhaps their wives, are compared.

We'll also have to see how compromised the major characters become in the course of their missions for APO; generally, killing bad guys for a good cause (or for the CIA) has been "good" within the moral calculus of the show. Given APO's somewhat dubious position, will the calculus change?


Any help in turning these scattered and poorly thought-out observations into something more coherent would be much appreciated. I have a feeling that many of you have said these things better in other places.

Comments

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

I'm not the only one to have noticed that this APO setup is extremely dubious--essentially, an arm of the CIA which answers to no one at all beyond its own members. It's possible that we're meant to flag this, to see APO as not only the image of SD-6 but as just as bad as SD-6; one wouldn't put Sloane in charge of an organization and expect it to remain innocuous. I think this leaves aside a larger issue, which is that the show is not interested in problematizing the use of American power to interfere in the internal politics of other states, and that it tends to judge individual actions on the individual rather than the action.

This is bothering me so much I'm not sure I can continue watching the show. I have never liked the romanticization of unchecked power, but I could divorce it from the aspects of the show I enjoyed before; with the administration publically arguing for the unaccountability of the officers at Guantanamo Bay, and the evidence of what that leads to all too evident in Abu Ghraib, I am having a hard time engaging in the fantasy.

I think that the sexual and geopolitical issues you cite are intertwined, and in both cases they come down to a profound political ignorance of the impact of the social on the personal, or, less generously, a refusal to consider any action in a social context larger than the nuclear family. I do not see any evidence that J.J. Abrams understands the personal as political; he seems, in fact, almost entirely blind to the political, which is how he combines a fairly liberal surface (female hero etc.) with a conservative narrative.

It's possible that we're meant to distrust the APO because it has Sloane, that fuzzy teddy bear of Evil, at its head, but given the presentation so far, and Alias' past history, I consider it much more likely that the story won't be the institutional abuse of power but the flaws of giving that power to the wrong individual.

[vaznetti]

...with the administration publically arguing for the unaccountability of the officers at Guantanamo Bay, and the evidence of what that leads to all too evident in Abu Ghraib, I am having a hard time engaging in the fantasy.

Although I don't find myself unable to watch the show, my mind went here as well during Sloane's "The CIA must be free from accountability!" speech. As you say, I suspect that the issue will eventually be reduced to "bad people (i. e. Sloane) do bad things, but you can trust good people (i.e. Sydney, Vaughn, Dixon and possibly Jack) to kill and torture on your behalf, because it's OK when they do it."

I'm relieved that you think that the show has a conservative narrative, despite the surface trappings--this has been something that has disturbed me every now and then. (I think--conservative on the domestic side, and hawkish on the foreign.)

...in both cases they come down to a profound political ignorance of the impact of the social on the personal, or, less generously, a refusal to consider any action in a social context larger than the nuclear family.

I think that your less generous option is the more correct one. The important narrative of the show is the Bristow-Derevko family dynamic; the fact that it plays itself out in a given political context is, I think, irrelevent to Abrams' story. I'm not sure that I can blame him for not telling a story he obviously has no interest in telling, to be honest, but in that case it's an odd choice of a setting. (Although not in term of the market--because he can sell it as an action show, not an evening soap--on that level, the whole thing is quite cleverly put together.) I suspect that, despite the setting, Abrams is purposefully avoiding any connection between the personal and the political, even when it would flow naturally from the storyline.

(Although I think that there's something there in the sexual politics. Can that be entirely unconscious? Isn't that almost by necessity a commentary on the institution of marriage? Not a well-thought out one, or a cherent one--but can it possibly be accidental?)

Which is only to repeat in a less focused fashion what you've already said.

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

The important narrative of the show is the Bristow-Derevko family dynamic; the fact that it plays itself out in a given political context is, I think, irrelevent to Abrams' story. I'm not sure that I can blame him for not telling a story he obviously has no interest in telling, to be honest, but in that case it's an odd choice of a setting. (Although not in term of the market--because he can sell it as an action show, not an evening soap--on that level, the whole thing is quite cleverly put together.) I suspect that, despite the setting, Abrams is purposefully avoiding any connection between the personal and the political, even when it would flow naturally from the storyline.

Yes, I agree with this -- a lot of the political incoherence seems to come from Abrams' disinterest in espionage as anything more than action trappings, which, as you note, results in storylines where the obvious consequences of actions are ignored. The way treason is dealt with--i.e., as less serious than and usually expressed as adultery--is particularly boggling.

I wouldn't be surprised if Abrams voted Democrat (I don't know and don't want to know), because of the surface trappings; but yes, I do think the background is very conservative and hawkish. Sydney's notable as an exception; the world of espionage is defined as a masculine one, in which women must use their sexuality above any other characteristic, and in which this use is inherently untrustworthy. The only good women are Sydney and various wives/girlfriends/friends who are generally ignorant of their husbands' careers and who get killed off because of it (Alison or was it Francie? I forget which was which, Dixon's wife, Vaughn's S1 girlfriend).

Can that be entirely unconscious? Isn't that almost by necessity a commentary on the institution of marriage? Not a well-thought out one, or a cherent one--but can it possibly be accidental?

I wouldn't call it unconscious--there's too much paralleling of various marriages going on: Jack/Irina, Sloane/Emily, smaller echoes like the Christian Slater guest star arc in S1 or S2. Though I don't see what it's saying besides a spouse who has ambitions outside marriage (Sloane, Irina) is inherently untrustworthy. The only reason that Jack is a Good Guy is that his number one priority is his daughter's safety. And I do credit them for problematizing Jack slightly, although I feel most of it goes to Victor Garber--he is able to make the world's most inexpressive character amazingly transparent to the audience and yet plausibly oblique to the other characters. But when it looked like we were going to get a darker father/daughter dynamic last year, it was obviously because Jack had put his daughter in Project Christmas, i.e., placed political aims above the child's wellbeing.

I'm not sure I'm saying anything you didn't cover already. I am glad you posted on this; I was thinking about it but not sure saying anything was worth the bother.

[vaznetti]

Though I don't see what it's saying besides a spouse who has ambitions outside marriage (Sloane, Irina) is inherently untrustworthy.

Oh--I see it as saying a good deal more than that, I think. It seems to me that it's (at minimum) arguing that the parent-child bond is stronger than the husband-wife bond and that it's threatened by it--husbands and wives are interlopers in each others' primary relationship, which is with the child. That's at a minimum--I think that there's a strongly negative view of marriage lurking in there somewhere.

[rez-lo.livejournal.com]

But doesn't it also seem that that the parent-child story is a shooting war as well? Sydney is the central example but the pattern repeats with Nadia-Sloane, Lauren and both parents, and Sark-Lazarey.

[batwrangler.livejournal.com]

>"bad people (i. e. Sloane) do bad things, but you can trust
>good people (i.e. Sydney, Vaughn, Dixon and possibly Jack)
>to kill and torture on your behalf, because it's
>OK when they do it."

I'm certain there was a Get Smart episode that had Max and 99 discussing this very thing in very nearly those words... I'm completely baffled by the idea that "goodness" and "badness" are teams you join rather than being determined by and reflected in the decisions you make and the actions you choose to take or strenuously avoid.

[veejane.livejournal.com]

I will say, the "I am Team Good, which means that my torturing people is less bad than other people's" is not a phenomenon exclusive to Alias. IIRC, two seasons ago, 24 began its day with Jack Bauer murdering and then decapitating a man in custody.

I mean, helloooooo to the lawsuit, before you even get into the issue of ethics and morals.

I suspect that the Le Carré habit of glorifying the "tragically hard choices" of secret agents has just gone over the top and into the realm of fantasy. It's not that we are to empathize with Sydney's/Jack's/Other Jack's choices; we are meant to be blown away by their determined badassery.

Actually, in a headcount, 24 would probably kill more people than Alias. Due to its narrative conceit, however, 24 spends a lot less time with its protagonist in hot pants.

[cofax7]

See John Crichton, who kills how many? 200,000? more? plus the entire population of a planet -- in order to force a cease-fire. The fact that he puts himself, his family, and his friends on the line as well really doesn't mitigate that.

[tavella.livejournal.com]

I'd actually rate that as a little different. The planet's inhabitants had already been killed and the few survivors evacuated by Jothee and the old lady -- there was only the single inhabited island. And the 200,000 he killed were all military, actively engaged in battle. So brutal, but not unethical in the way that torturing and killing a helpless prisoner is.

[vaznetti]

Curse you! I am now imaging Jack Bauer in hot pants! This is a whole world of "ew," even though I don't dislike Kiefer Sutherland.

I think what irritates me about the "I am Team Good etc." stance is that not only is it dubious on an ethical level, it also makes for bad storytelling--and to be fair, I don't watch Alias for the ethics. I find the hard choices dramatically interesting, not only in watching the characters make them, but also in watching the repercussions.

[batwrangler.livejournal.com]

I watched Alias for most of S1, then missed some critical episodes and never caught up, so I'm completely unqualified to remark on S4, but ...


>This is bothering me so much I'm not sure I can continue watching
>the show. I have never liked the romanticization of unchecked power,

This is why I stopped watching Le Femme Nikita (and also the fact that every show seemed to be plotted solely in answer to the question "what's the worst torture we can inflict upon Nikita this week?") I fairly quickly came to the conclusion that if those were the "good guys" and what they were doing was the only way to "save the world" then the world deserved to end in ice or fire or a combination thereof. Saving the sum of things for pay is one thing, doing really nasty things on a regular basis in the name of theoretically stopping even nastier things is something entirely else, and doesn't count for me as entertainment.

[dagnylilytable.livejournal.com]

First, I wrote a Sark mourning Irina piece partially with you in mind. It could use beta, if you have a spare moment.


Desire is not about honesty in this show, which may be why there are so many structural problems with the way the Syd/Vaughn relationship works within it.

Essentially, because most Syd/Vaughn scenes are about desire rather than anything else, it casts doubt on the honesty/motivations of the entire relationship. Assuming I'm reading you right.


Anyway. Sydney's job involves feigning desire for men she doesn't desire (as does Nadia's, as did Irina's).

I'd argue that Sark's job probably included/includes elements of the same, although that's more of a subtext reading than anything textual, which is interesting in itself.

Also, while we see Sark, Jack, and even Sloane sleep with women for other purposes than pleasure, Jack/Katya, Sloane/Barnett and Sark/Doren, Sark/Lauren clearly also involve pleasure, whatever else is mixed in. I'm left with cliche-- at least some of the men appear to have their cake and eat it too.


and that it tends to judge individual actions on the individual rather than the action.


Instead of the ends justifying the means, it's who uses the means that justifies the ends. It's moral position I have difficulty sympathizing with, and it loses even more ground with me the more Sydney gets flattened as a character, since she's supposed to be teh most morally superior of them all.

[vaznetti]

About the beta: sure, but don't tell Auburn, because I'm supposed to be working on that Xmen piece for her, too.

Essentially, because most Syd/Vaughn scenes are about desire rather than anything else, it casts doubt on the honesty/motivations of the entire relationship. Assuming I'm reading you right.

I hadn't actually made it this far--because it seems to me that the writers do expect me to see the Syd/Vaughn relationship as honest--and certainly, in S2, that was a big part of it. Remember how they wanted to be able to be honest about it? Now that I think about it, maybe that's why I could buy their story as a love story in S2 and not in S3.

I think that it's interesting that we never see men whoring themselves out the the way the women on the show do, so regularly--you'd almost expect to have seen it by now with Sark, wouldn't you? Perhaps the difference in the relationships you cite is because the show posits the conservative stance that men want sex, but women want love? That is, a man can get pleasure from sex with a pretty, willing partner regardless of emotional commitment, but a woman can't? (To be clear--this isn't what I think, but I wonder if it's the point of view that the show is putting forth?)

Sloane/Barnett. I'd forgotten about that one. I might need to think about that. More sex-as-warfare by other means? more sex-as-deception?

It's moral position I have difficulty sympathizing with...

It makes me CRAZY!!!! CRAZY!!!! Ahem. Yes, what you said.

[dagnylilytable.livejournal.com]

Remember how they wanted to be able to be honest about it? Now that I think about it, maybe that's why I could buy their story as a love story in S2 and not in S3.

And, IMO, it's possible to posit that their emotional communication was at its best *before* the relationship got sexual. Which can be read as support of the assertion that (unmarried), sexual relationships are less healthy than relationships where there is no sex.

But that's a wierd position for the show to take since clearly marriage is poisonous too. *scratches head*

That is, a man can get pleasure from sex with a pretty, willing partner regardless of emotional commitment, but a woman can't?

And then there's Irina, who is "The Man," gets pleasure from sex regardless of emotional commitment (subtextually, and textually in the Cuvee scenes from the Passage arc), but is Evil, (let's not forget that all our evil women on this show step out of that gender role of only wanting love).

These kinds of assertions make me uncomfortable too (and you know I'm a good bit more conservative than most of fandom), and I know I instinctively dislike the show's brand of foreign policy hawkishness, but I'd have to think about why- since I'm very much a hawk by my generation's standards.

[oyceter]

I stopped watching Alias because I was getting so incredibly pissed off at the gender dynamics of the show. There are women in the show who can get pleasure from sex with pretty willing partners, but I think almost all of them are evil -- Irina, Lauren, Allison. The good girls, of course, only flash around their sexuality and wait to have sex with someone that is emotionally close.

[vaznetti]

I think that what irritates me most about this pattern is the way the "good girls" play the tease all the time. Too much television has numbed me to the "only bad women enjoy sex; good women only enjoy sex with their True Love" pattern, but there's something deeply invidious about the way Sydney is shown using her sexuality that I can't quite put my finger on.

[veejane.livejournal.com]

fwiw, the only time Sydney looked like she was enjoying herself sexually was when she had that fling with Will. Which was totally strings-free, and fun for both of them, and lacking in angst, and could be taken up again (or not) the next time they run into each other.

Actually, it was her random comfort nookie with Will that convinced me of the "you cannot have sex with people you love" rule of last season. Fuck the ones you hate, sure, but stay away from the ones you love or else they will die and/or become a traitor.

This gives me hope, of course, for Sydney/Sark someday in the future.

But yes, overall, Sydney's use of sex is a bit one-note in her adventures. Surely there are secret agents in this world who can't be led around by their dicks?

[coffeeandink.livejournal.com]

It makes me CRAZY!!!! CRAZY!!!! Ahem. Yes, what you said.

It makes me crazycrazycrazy. And I can't watch it without thinking of George Bush dividing the world into "good people" and "evildoers."

[cofax7]

I like these thoughts.

Which is to say, today I am stupid and can't comment, especially since I only saw the first 20 minutes of the pilot before wandering off to bed. But the use of Sloane in the new APO, and your political concerns, are symptomatic of the way Abrams is apparently structuring the show: dramatic impact over logic or even believability every step of the way.

Which I can't *really* complain about, being a Farscape fan, but the gloss of respectability Alias has (as a kinda-sorta-not-genre show) means that it gets a far wider audience, and a less sophisticated one (present company excepted, natch), which is *not* going to read the text as critically as you or I would. Also, I don't see the characters challenging the narrative: I assume none of them are bothered by these issues? (This may be where my unfamiliarity with canon bites me in the ass.)

Even Farscape S4, despite its flaws, did recognize that Crichton's means weren't necessarily justified. (Of course, the miniseries kind of undercut that, with the whole suicide/genocide threat, and the destruction of a planet and half a dozen command carriers.)

Um. Lost my train of thought, and lunch, sadly, is over.

[vaznetti]

Also, I don't see the characters challenging the narrative: I assume none of them are bothered by these issues?

So far, no one seems to be--the characters are bothered because they're working for Crazy Uncle Arvin again, but not because the whole structure is corrupt. It's clear that they'd all be perfectly happy to commit murder and mayhem for an unaccountable branch of the CIA that didn't have Sloane in charge.

I don't mind going for dramatic impact, but I need a certain amount of logic, and I'd like characters who don't appear to be entirely blind to moral issues.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about those sexual politics (http://www.livejournal.com/users/selenak/118448.html) and the way Alias and others are playing coy with the prostitution aspect...

[vaznetti]

Thanks for the link--an interesting post and comments.

[zarahemla.livejournal.com]

It is also the case that I have trouble with the cultural line between "owning your own desire" and "leading a man on," although not usually in my own life.

I have a huge problem with this; I've been wrestling with it because I think Sydney should be able to use her sexuality if she wants; BUT:

1) I have yet to see a man do the same thing. Would Vaughn ever put on a hot pair of boxers and try to seduce a female in this situation? I don't know, but somehow I doubt it. (Maybe Jack would though.) It's like, in JJ's world, men don't need to use their sexuality but women do need to, in fact they don't seem to be able to get along without doing it. Irina did, Lauren did, and I guess we'll see about New Sydney Clone.

2) In the meeting, Sydney saying, "How am I supposed to [get him to open his briefcase]?" And Sloane replying with this little smirk, "I'm sure you'll think of something." They want her to do it; they're expecting her to do it; as far as I'm concerned, Sloane is saying, "That's why we picked you. Go show off your flat abs and make this poor schlub's day." It's starting to irritate me.

As far as the APO's abuse of power (and obviously JJ doesn't know that "APO" already stands for something, namely, "Army Post Office,"), I think I hate it. Carte blanche doesn't appeal to me; it's why I liked Bourne Identity so much. You want a sword? Go rob the museum. No one'll ever catch you and if they do, it doesn't matter! You have no accountability! Whatever. Takes away the ingenuity of the show, not to mention makes them scarier than usual, governmentally speaking. Regular CIA = bad enough. Super!CIA = I dunno.

[vaznetti]

It's like, in JJ's world, men don't need to use their sexuality but women do need to, in fact they don't seem to be able to get along without doing it. Irina did, Lauren did, and I guess we'll see about New Sydney Clone.

Hasn't Nadia already done this, with the drugged lipstick incident? But yes, to the larger pattern. I don't think we've seen a female character who doesn't use her sexuality to take advantage of men. In some ways I think that the ethos of Alias is misogynist on some deep level--female sexuality is clearly a dangerous, scary thing, even within the (normally domesticating) confines of marriage. Which is why on the one hand, like you, I think Sydney should be able to use her sexuality if she wants, but I don't think that this is the position of the show. And as you point out, sometimes Sydney seems pretty reluctant to play this game.

Doesn't everyone know that APO stands for Army Post Office? Even I know that.

You want a sword? Go rob the museum. No one'll ever catch you and if they do, it doesn't matter! You have no accountability! Whatever.

And even more, stealing the sword becomes an opportunity to score points--the official US government gets to take the credit for finding it and returning it. Pretty cool, since the CIA stole it in the first place. Maybe they should just do that all the time.

[zarahemla.livejournal.com]

Hasn't Nadia already done this, with the drugged lipstick incident?

Oh yeah! Good call.

In some ways I think that the ethos of Alias is misogynist on some deep level--female sexuality is clearly a dangerous, scary thing, even within the (normally domesticating) confines of marriage.

Very true: 1) As if their sexuality can only be used as a weapon; and 2) as if that weapon is the non-violent (but not non-violate) version of a gun. Even Lauren uses sex with Sark to hurt Vaughn.

Pretty cool, since the CIA stole it in the first place. Maybe they should just do that all the time.

Yeah, and be really really boring about it. Then we can all switch over to "24" or something.

more incoherence here! :)

[adjectivegirl.livejournal.com]

Hi, linked over here from voleuse. I was incredibly pissed off after the premiere and while I'm withholding whether I continue to watch until tommorow's episode, you brought up some cool points.

I thought the premiere mirrored "Phase One" almost directly, starting from the beginning with an iconic song ("Back in Black" vs. "At Last"": tenuous association but everyone knows these songs) and Sydney in her underwear. The thing about "Phase One" is that in a broader social contsruct, it took place after/during the Super Bowl, Middle America o rama and hopefully a sausage fest that would somehow be drawn to the show through skimpy outfits. I was irritated, but it barely appeared again but something makes me suspect J.J. Abrams has gotten desperate again. You can tell by the change to the credits with numerous images of Jennifer Garner preened to the 9s.

I find something that happened in Buffy, to a lesser degree, similar to what happens in "Authorized Personel Only" in that the Good girl can only fall into bed with the Good Guy under periods of distress. Even after the fall of SD-6 Sydney tried (very briefly) to restrain her sexuality around Vaughn. And of course she got punished for it, by being filmed by Alison. Ech.

The only exception to the women semi-prostituting themselves during spywork I would say is Jack, who slept with Irina to deliberately inject her with a tracer. Also to make us happy.

Anyway, I hope fervently for some change but the change seems to be less savory and more stereotypical than I'd like.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmeta!

there she is, only a few minutes in, flashing her panties at some chemist guy on a train.

Ever since I entered the flashy, hyper-sexy (but not hyper-sexed) world of Alias, I've regarded this as "flashing her panties at the male (and some female) viewers"-- I'm not entirely sure Jayjay is aware of the implied statement about the CIA and the seriously problematic protocol for female agents on more than a token "a girlspy's gotta do what a girlspy's gotta do" level.

I hear your thoughts, though; it's something that struck me ages ago but that I never followed through with...mostly because I used to have trouble with analysing this show-- unlike taking apart what happens in the Jossverse, analysing Alias always seems to translate to analysing either *very* general motifs, the writers (and the parts they are thinking with) or ourselves, the audience (and the parts we're thinking with). Which is actually pretty interesting in itself, as exemplified here. & ;-) Huh.

I suspect that there's rather a lot to that last, and it makes me uneasy.

You're onto something there. I felt pity for the guy, but the overriding response wasn't very positive. As far as I can tell, it didn't stem from his looks or any perceived lack thereof but the fact he was so incredibly easily lead on-- come on, how many sex kittens want to peek not into your shirt but your supersekrit spy!briefcase? But I generally roll my eyes at the transparency of many Alias ploys (easy enough from my comfy couch position; maybe I wouldn't suspect anything if I was in the poor deluded fools' place).

Hmm, and I didn't even get to what I really wanted to say... *sighs and returns to books*