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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 12:41 pm (UTC)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.