Alias politics
Jan. 7th, 2005 03:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vaznettiThis 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-07 04:28 pm (UTC)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.