This 3-parter marked the beginning of the short-lived (but oh, so technically savvy) Battlestar Galactica series which aired on television in the late 1970s. What amazed me when I first watched this show as a kid were the special effects, which at that time were almost movie-like. What amazes me when I watch it now is the realism. More than I ever did watching Star Trek, I FEEL as if I'm on the Battlestar or flying in one of those fighter jets at unbelievable speeds. The battles seem real, the explosions seem real, and the logistical gymnastics required to send fighters into space from what is essentially an extraterrestrial version of an aircraft carrier come across as VERY real. I even like the battlestar design (efficient, functional, and aesthetically pleasing).
The overwhelming trauma of watching an entire civilization die around them is palpable in the words and actions of the characters as well, all of whom are well-acted, and I think this has something to do with the fact that Lorne Greene was one of the 4 male leads in the series. I could feel the gut-wrenching horror, depression, and shame that the characters face in this 3-parter as they are transformed--in a matter of hours--from proud citizens of a twelve-planet civilization to fugitives escaping the destruction of everything they have ever cherished. Oddly enough, Apollo (whose farewell line to his brother struck me as one of the coldest lines I had ever heard--come on, man, your brother is making the ultimate sacrifice for you so that you can warn the fleet, and all you think of is "You can fly with me anytime?") captures this transformation eloquently when he says, "We're starting over."
Despite the overwhelming merits of "Saga of a Star World," the 3-parter does have two drawbacks (not including the ridiculous decision by the Imperius Leader to hide his ship behind the planet Carrollon when it is in the process of exploding--guess he didn't read the technical reports on the mineral his civilization was mining there . . . ): First of all, we have a character whose job description is "socialator." This is a term that is utterly meaningless in and of itself (which I suspect was the producers' way of getting around Broadcast Standards and Practices back then), but in the show, it is pretty obvious that a "socialator" is, in fact, a prostitute. This is not necessarily bad (I don't have any qualms about showing prostitution--or any of the other sins man has invented--on national television), but once again, we see the "liberated" culture of the 1960's sexual revolution (which by the time Galactica first aired had become the culturally dominating force of the 1970s) influencing the way that certain practices are portrayed on the small screen. Cassie's trade is not only presented in a positive light here, but she and Apollo's sister appear to be in a contest to win Starbuck's sexual advances. Most importantly, both of these activities are presented as normal and even positive, and this is something that a Christian television watcher should be aware of.
More importantly, with the introduction of a robot named "Lucifer," we see the beginning of the otherworldly arc within the Battlestar Galactica series. I'll write about this arc in more detail later, but suffice it to say, the interpretation of Christian names and concepts throughout the show should ring hollow to anyone who has a passing knowledge of the Bible. Obviously, the show's producers want to paint an image of a ragtag remnant of humanity (or is it a ragtag remnant of the "righteous?") fleeing the clutches of the devil, which is strangely evocative of the "party line" version of early Mormon history (as well as a few ragtag fringe cults that have sprung up over the years). To use the '70s parlance, I dig where the producers are coming from here, and I respect anyone who is sensitive to spiritual concerns. However, as a Christian, I know that my Bible says nothing about a remnant being pursued by anyone (much less the devil)--only that God will preserve a remnant for Himself (that is, the people through the ages who have been born again in Christ Jesus). The trials, tribulations, and terrors are for THIS life, not the next one.
This may all seem like nitpicking--after all, as I used to say whenever I encountered arguments like this one, it is just a TV show--but what I am trying to illustrate here is that what we watch on television has an influence on us--especially when we IGNORE that influence and passively take in what we are seeing. Television, especially when our children are exposed to it, is a teacher--a teacher of morals, a teacher of history, a teacher of science, and a teacher of spirituality--and however hotly this teacher's message may be dismissed by those of us who are parents, it is certainly not lost on our children.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Star Trek: Mudd's Women
This is perhaps one of the sleaziest episodes of television ever to air, primarily because it was so overt in its content and themes. The Enterprise essentially rescues a pimp fleeing in a smaller vessel with his "cargo"--3 women who are (for all practical purposes) prostitutes. Bio-genetically "enhanced" to be super-attractive through the use of an alien substance, the women drive the men on the ship to distraction before serving as their pimp's means of extorting the Enterprise. The Enterprise's fate, of course, rests in the captain's ability to attempt to convince 3 ecstatic miners to tear themselves away from their new brides long enough to give the ship the crystals it desperately needs to stay in orbit.
Remember that this was 1966, and television had not gone nearly as far in showing overt sexual sin as it does today. This episode may well have been the first to show prostitution in a positive light--a dashing, debonair con artist selling unbelievably beautiful young women to the highest bidder. The women's bio-genetically enhanced beauty, of course, seems to have been one of the easiest special effects for the production staff to put together. The actresses--all of whom must have been models before starring in the show--simply wore the make-up needed to make anyone look good on camera, and this, coupled with some simple cinematography, resulted in the effect of "enhanced" beauty. To simulate the effects of the alien drug wearing off, the producers undoubtedly filmed the actresses without make-up and without the special cinematography. (I'm sure there was more to it than that, but the transition between make-up and no make-up would definitely explain the transition between "beautiful" and "ugly" that occurs when the women's drugs wear off, as heavy make-up is required to make both men AND women look good in front of a camera.)
There are two things very wrong with this episode, in spite of what it seems to be saying at the end (one of the miners choosing to stay with his new bride even after finding out that her beauty has been bio-genetically enhanced). For starters, what happened to all the leggy female crew members in skin-tight "uniforms" who have been serving on the Enterprise for the previous several episodes? They seem to disappear in this one--both in the eyes of their male crewmates and (apparently) in the eyes of the production staff as well. One would think that Lieutenant Uhura or Nurse Chapel or Yeoman Rand would do whatever they could to expose Mudd's scheme simply on the basis of female competitiveness, but it takes one of the bio-genetically enhanced women themselves to finally come clean before the truth is revealed to the ship's captain.
More disturbingly, while no actual sex takes place between crew members and Mudd's women, the suggestion of the POSSIBILITY of sex is very potent throughout the episode, and this is one of the reasons why I consider it to be one of the sleaziest episodes of television ever to air. This was 1966, and while sexuality had been introduced in an overt way in film (although not nearly as overt as it is displayed in modern cinema), it was still a brand new part of small screen television, which mostly featured family shows and Westerns. To show what essentially amounted to prostitution in such a positive way (yes, the women are exploited, but yes, they also seem to be ENJOYING the exploitation) was to make a complete departure from what had been the norm in television's portrayal of sexuality. Roddenberry was, in many ways, a cultural trailblazer, and shows like this one blazed the way for the sexual revolution which took place during the late 1960's. The counterculture was, in a very real sense, "tuning in" to shows like Star Trek, and young men and women were seeing a vision of the future that did not fit inside the walls of the stale portrayal of sexuality and marriage they had seen on the small screen for over a decade.
Television has an immense influence in the family home. It is, in a very real sense, a teacher. Unfortunately, most of the lessons it teaches seem to fall under our radar, including the lesson that sex is conquest and adventure with multiple people (and, presumably, without kids to get in the way of the fun). I'm not saying that sex isn't an adventure or that sex isn't fun--quite the contrary--but I AM saying that sex is not the frolicking romp through multiple partners that the entertainment industry says it is. After all, the whole point of having sex--biologically--is having children, right? The drive to unite with someone of the opposite sex is inexorably bound up with the drive to procreate, so much so that even young men who want to "play the field" before getting married still refuse to wear condoms during their sexual encounters. Why do you think they do that, ladies? It's because deep inside of them, there is a drive to procreate that is part of what ultimately comprises their sex drive, and even though they don't understand it themselves (and certainly, on a conscious level, don't want--at the time--to take up the responsibility of being fathers), they still can't bring themselves to use birth control.
This is why divorce is proliferating in America, why American families are becoming so divided and dysfunctional--because our society, via television, has divorced sexuality from procreation. Sex without procreation is sex without love, however, and most people discover, to their horror, that "playing the field" leaves them far more lonely than they ever felt before they played. I would suggest that part of being a Christian in our day and age is teaching--through example--that sex and procreation are fundamentally intertwined, that indeed one does not have "good" sex WITHOUT first committing to the possibility that one will be a parent and a spouse. Teaching our children to view sex in this way is a very important part of teaching them to approach their culture from a Christian perspective.
Remember that this was 1966, and television had not gone nearly as far in showing overt sexual sin as it does today. This episode may well have been the first to show prostitution in a positive light--a dashing, debonair con artist selling unbelievably beautiful young women to the highest bidder. The women's bio-genetically enhanced beauty, of course, seems to have been one of the easiest special effects for the production staff to put together. The actresses--all of whom must have been models before starring in the show--simply wore the make-up needed to make anyone look good on camera, and this, coupled with some simple cinematography, resulted in the effect of "enhanced" beauty. To simulate the effects of the alien drug wearing off, the producers undoubtedly filmed the actresses without make-up and without the special cinematography. (I'm sure there was more to it than that, but the transition between make-up and no make-up would definitely explain the transition between "beautiful" and "ugly" that occurs when the women's drugs wear off, as heavy make-up is required to make both men AND women look good in front of a camera.)
There are two things very wrong with this episode, in spite of what it seems to be saying at the end (one of the miners choosing to stay with his new bride even after finding out that her beauty has been bio-genetically enhanced). For starters, what happened to all the leggy female crew members in skin-tight "uniforms" who have been serving on the Enterprise for the previous several episodes? They seem to disappear in this one--both in the eyes of their male crewmates and (apparently) in the eyes of the production staff as well. One would think that Lieutenant Uhura or Nurse Chapel or Yeoman Rand would do whatever they could to expose Mudd's scheme simply on the basis of female competitiveness, but it takes one of the bio-genetically enhanced women themselves to finally come clean before the truth is revealed to the ship's captain.
More disturbingly, while no actual sex takes place between crew members and Mudd's women, the suggestion of the POSSIBILITY of sex is very potent throughout the episode, and this is one of the reasons why I consider it to be one of the sleaziest episodes of television ever to air. This was 1966, and while sexuality had been introduced in an overt way in film (although not nearly as overt as it is displayed in modern cinema), it was still a brand new part of small screen television, which mostly featured family shows and Westerns. To show what essentially amounted to prostitution in such a positive way (yes, the women are exploited, but yes, they also seem to be ENJOYING the exploitation) was to make a complete departure from what had been the norm in television's portrayal of sexuality. Roddenberry was, in many ways, a cultural trailblazer, and shows like this one blazed the way for the sexual revolution which took place during the late 1960's. The counterculture was, in a very real sense, "tuning in" to shows like Star Trek, and young men and women were seeing a vision of the future that did not fit inside the walls of the stale portrayal of sexuality and marriage they had seen on the small screen for over a decade.
Television has an immense influence in the family home. It is, in a very real sense, a teacher. Unfortunately, most of the lessons it teaches seem to fall under our radar, including the lesson that sex is conquest and adventure with multiple people (and, presumably, without kids to get in the way of the fun). I'm not saying that sex isn't an adventure or that sex isn't fun--quite the contrary--but I AM saying that sex is not the frolicking romp through multiple partners that the entertainment industry says it is. After all, the whole point of having sex--biologically--is having children, right? The drive to unite with someone of the opposite sex is inexorably bound up with the drive to procreate, so much so that even young men who want to "play the field" before getting married still refuse to wear condoms during their sexual encounters. Why do you think they do that, ladies? It's because deep inside of them, there is a drive to procreate that is part of what ultimately comprises their sex drive, and even though they don't understand it themselves (and certainly, on a conscious level, don't want--at the time--to take up the responsibility of being fathers), they still can't bring themselves to use birth control.
This is why divorce is proliferating in America, why American families are becoming so divided and dysfunctional--because our society, via television, has divorced sexuality from procreation. Sex without procreation is sex without love, however, and most people discover, to their horror, that "playing the field" leaves them far more lonely than they ever felt before they played. I would suggest that part of being a Christian in our day and age is teaching--through example--that sex and procreation are fundamentally intertwined, that indeed one does not have "good" sex WITHOUT first committing to the possibility that one will be a parent and a spouse. Teaching our children to view sex in this way is a very important part of teaching them to approach their culture from a Christian perspective.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Star Trek: The Enemy Within
Unlike the Stargate SG-1 episode of the same title, this episode of Star Trek involved something much more philosophical than a worm, worm, worm that takes over a man's body and attempts to blow up a U.S. military base: the separation of a man--via malfunctioning transporter technology--into 2 selves, a "good" self and an "evil" self. This is, in many ways, one of the most fascinating episodes that Star Trek ever offered, and I think it shows us a particularly eye-opening glimpse at some of the perspectives that informed large sectors of the 1960's counterculture. The principle is simple: Kirk, having transported from an ice planet, is split by the transporter into 2 versions of himself--one of which is kind, benevolent, but indecisive, and the other of which is authoritative, vicious, and greedy. Of course, both selves cannot exist apart for long, so after a series of episodes involving mistaken identity (during which Kirk's first officer, Spock, of course, gets what is going on), Kirk's "good" and "evil" selves come together in a climactic conflict, then consent to an attempt to fuse them together into the original Kirk (who contains both of these selves meshed into one personality) via the transporter.
I like a lot of what this episode says about the goodness and evil present in every man, but let's take note of something here. Note that Kirk (and presumably anyone else) needs BOTH his good and evil natures in order to function adequately as a captain (and as a human being). Without his "evil" self, he becomes a dimwitted, pitiful excuse for a man who cannot make his own choices.
This perspective of good and evil is highly reminiscent of Taoism and other Eastern philosophies which suggest that we need a BALANCE of good and evil inside of us to function properly. The problem with this perspective, of course, is that we (yes, that's right, we--the same people who muck up every important thing that we encounter in this life) are the ones who are vested with the responsibility of determining what that balance is. How much evil is too much? How much GOOD is too little? These are questions that none of these Eastern philosophies seem willing to answer.
The fact is, as those of us who have been born again can tell you, it's not that simple. We have an "evil" side because we ADDED that "evil" side to our human matrix through our disobedient attitude toward God. We no more "need" that evil side than a gunshot victim "needs" the bullet that threatens his or her life. If we were to lose that side of ourselves, the wonders we would have attained as a species would have far surpassed anything our inventions, clunky technologies, and new political ideologies have ever wrought during our fledgling 6000 years of existence. A world without hunger, a world without war or disease--these were God's intention for us all when he first formed man and woman from the dust of the ground. It is only because of our arrogance, our refusal to listen to the still, small voice inside ourselves that says we can be something better, that we continue to wreak atrocity after atrocity on each other, unleashing torrents of death and misery on a world that God intended to be a happy one. Our "evil" side is what causes hate and war and prejudice and pollution and a thousand other ills that all of us bemoan but none of us--in our heart of hearts--really want to change.
Therefore, if one of us were to be "split apart" in the same way that Kirk was in this episode, I think she would be surprised not only at how destructive her "evil" side really is but at how little she finds her "good" side needing it.
I like a lot of what this episode says about the goodness and evil present in every man, but let's take note of something here. Note that Kirk (and presumably anyone else) needs BOTH his good and evil natures in order to function adequately as a captain (and as a human being). Without his "evil" self, he becomes a dimwitted, pitiful excuse for a man who cannot make his own choices.
This perspective of good and evil is highly reminiscent of Taoism and other Eastern philosophies which suggest that we need a BALANCE of good and evil inside of us to function properly. The problem with this perspective, of course, is that we (yes, that's right, we--the same people who muck up every important thing that we encounter in this life) are the ones who are vested with the responsibility of determining what that balance is. How much evil is too much? How much GOOD is too little? These are questions that none of these Eastern philosophies seem willing to answer.
The fact is, as those of us who have been born again can tell you, it's not that simple. We have an "evil" side because we ADDED that "evil" side to our human matrix through our disobedient attitude toward God. We no more "need" that evil side than a gunshot victim "needs" the bullet that threatens his or her life. If we were to lose that side of ourselves, the wonders we would have attained as a species would have far surpassed anything our inventions, clunky technologies, and new political ideologies have ever wrought during our fledgling 6000 years of existence. A world without hunger, a world without war or disease--these were God's intention for us all when he first formed man and woman from the dust of the ground. It is only because of our arrogance, our refusal to listen to the still, small voice inside ourselves that says we can be something better, that we continue to wreak atrocity after atrocity on each other, unleashing torrents of death and misery on a world that God intended to be a happy one. Our "evil" side is what causes hate and war and prejudice and pollution and a thousand other ills that all of us bemoan but none of us--in our heart of hearts--really want to change.
Therefore, if one of us were to be "split apart" in the same way that Kirk was in this episode, I think she would be surprised not only at how destructive her "evil" side really is but at how little she finds her "good" side needing it.
Lost: The Pilot
I recently saw the first 2 episodes of Lost, the acclaimed television series that seems to have launched J.J. Abrams into his movie career, and I must say . . . I was not impressed. Original? Hardly. The first hour of the show was very reminiscent of another "castaway" television show that aired a few decades ago. That show was called Gilligan's Island, and it also began with passengers emerging from a wrecked mode of transportation (this time a sailboat), attempting to get their bearings and trying to discover what they could of the new island. (Incidentally, the passengers spent the rest of the series having a lot of strange adventures on the island, just as I presume the passengers of the doomed airliner had throughout the rest of their series.) The second hour reminded me of another show that aired several decades ago--The Prisoner.
I'll give the show kudos for narrative pacing and for its special effects (which were, in the first hour, reminiscent of the movie Castaway and its plane wreck scene). The characters' fear and bewilderment at being trapped in a seemingly deserted island comes across as real and forms a kind of underlying "heartbeat" for the show. Also, I get the impression that perhaps those 48 people who made it onto the beach alive probably didn't make it through the rest of the series unscathed, which (if true) is a nice change of pace from most television series, in which the creators make clear who the "disposable" characters are and who they are not from the very first episode.
However, even though there is a lot to admire technically in this show, the plot strikes me as derivative of social Darwinism: Who will survive on this island? Who DESERVES to survive on this island? What tools of ingenuity will these human beings discover within themselves as they attempt to remain alive without technology long enough for someone to rescue them? All of these questions spring from the same motto which has become the hallmark of what we know as Darwinism today: survival of the fittest. Oh yeah, and we're invited to join in the "selection" process through our suspicion of the characters and their motives, too.
Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest") is a concept that also undergirds much of reality television these days, and I find it ironic that Lost aired shortly after a famous reality series--Survivor--had begun its legendary run. I saw enough bare backs, bare bellies, and small (but strategically placed) bikinis to remind me of that series, and the mutual suspicion among the characters also reminded me of the mutual suspicion engendered among Survivor's contestants. Ultimately, this show teaches by example, rather than by precept (see my posts on Stargate SG-1 and Star Trek), what any good believer in evolutionary theory should know about not only the world but how to live his or her own life.
Atheism is a major driving force within our culture, and it makes sense that atheism is going to drive every article of mass media entertainment our culture produces. That is why, even though shows like Lost appear innocent on the surface (no fornication, bloodletting, or denunciations of God/religion within the pilot episode), they still bear the stamp of the culture which is producing them. To be unaware of this is to be unaware of the fundamental philosophy that, unfortunately, all too many of us are allowing our television sets to teach our children. If you want your children to have the same heart for the God of the Bible (and the God of Christianity) that you do--if not better--you need to be aware, at every step of the way, what you may be allowing others--without your knowledge--to teach your children, and as always, the teacher that most undermines your influence with your children may not be someone you hire or pay with your tax dollars. It could easily be what you have, with comparatively little expense, brought into your living room.
I'll give the show kudos for narrative pacing and for its special effects (which were, in the first hour, reminiscent of the movie Castaway and its plane wreck scene). The characters' fear and bewilderment at being trapped in a seemingly deserted island comes across as real and forms a kind of underlying "heartbeat" for the show. Also, I get the impression that perhaps those 48 people who made it onto the beach alive probably didn't make it through the rest of the series unscathed, which (if true) is a nice change of pace from most television series, in which the creators make clear who the "disposable" characters are and who they are not from the very first episode.
However, even though there is a lot to admire technically in this show, the plot strikes me as derivative of social Darwinism: Who will survive on this island? Who DESERVES to survive on this island? What tools of ingenuity will these human beings discover within themselves as they attempt to remain alive without technology long enough for someone to rescue them? All of these questions spring from the same motto which has become the hallmark of what we know as Darwinism today: survival of the fittest. Oh yeah, and we're invited to join in the "selection" process through our suspicion of the characters and their motives, too.
Natural selection (or "survival of the fittest") is a concept that also undergirds much of reality television these days, and I find it ironic that Lost aired shortly after a famous reality series--Survivor--had begun its legendary run. I saw enough bare backs, bare bellies, and small (but strategically placed) bikinis to remind me of that series, and the mutual suspicion among the characters also reminded me of the mutual suspicion engendered among Survivor's contestants. Ultimately, this show teaches by example, rather than by precept (see my posts on Stargate SG-1 and Star Trek), what any good believer in evolutionary theory should know about not only the world but how to live his or her own life.
Atheism is a major driving force within our culture, and it makes sense that atheism is going to drive every article of mass media entertainment our culture produces. That is why, even though shows like Lost appear innocent on the surface (no fornication, bloodletting, or denunciations of God/religion within the pilot episode), they still bear the stamp of the culture which is producing them. To be unaware of this is to be unaware of the fundamental philosophy that, unfortunately, all too many of us are allowing our television sets to teach our children. If you want your children to have the same heart for the God of the Bible (and the God of Christianity) that you do--if not better--you need to be aware, at every step of the way, what you may be allowing others--without your knowledge--to teach your children, and as always, the teacher that most undermines your influence with your children may not be someone you hire or pay with your tax dollars. It could easily be what you have, with comparatively little expense, brought into your living room.
Stargate SG-1: The Enemy Within
Sometimes "breather" episodes (episodes that occur after something really traumatic has happened to the characters) can be better than the ratings-getters, and this episode (which aired immediately after the pilot) is no exception. The pain of Tealc, who is imprisoned, held under suspicion, and almost dissected by the very planet he has sworn to defend, is real, as is the pain of Kowalski (who, in the previous episode was infected by one of those worms, worms, worms), and the production staff made the bad boys from outer space bad again, as bad as they were in the movie. However, I noticed that in the process of prioritizing the "evil alien infiltrates the mind of a good guy" story in this episode, the producers gave short shrift to Daniel Jackson who, if I recall correctly, is mourning the loss of a WIFE. I've been a newlywed, and trust me, if my wife were stolen from me during our first year of marriage by some evil force, I would be a basket case . . . which makes me wonder why Daniel Jackson's reaction is so cool and measured and calm. (Remember, he's not a military man--just an archeologist--so his training would not, repeat NOT, enable him to "turn off" his emotions in a way that military training would help men like Colonel O'Neil.)
If I remember correctly, this is the beginning of the "Where is Daniel Jackson?" argument that plagued the series. I think that the main reason why Daniel Jackson was slighted for a while is simply that the show has another, better "partner" for O'Neil--Samantha Carter. Think about it--she fulfills the same scientific role as Jackson did in the movie, and she also does a good job of building a rapport with O'Neil in the first episodes of the show. Basically, she's a replacement for Daniel, and I think this is something that the producers of the show had a hard time working out for the first several seasons. (Frankly, I'm not sure if they ever got it right.)
As for the story of godhood versus humanity, we find that "the truth" of our existence is that while we "evolved" on Earth, we were "discovered" by the evil space aliens who show themselves in the movie, the series pilot, and this episode and transplanted to hundreds of other worlds for use as (to put it bluntly) livestock. This is fine--I'm all for the idea of presenting human beings as farm animals cultivated by other beings (though I think it is not in accord with the Christian perspective of a God who lovingly creates each one of us as unique, special creatures)--but really, if you're willing to say that we were farmed by alien beings on hundreds of worlds so that they could use our bodies, why would it be necessary for us to have "evolved" at all? Might it not also be possible that the same beings who "farmed" us also genetically engineered us as a perfect "host" race designed to suit their needs?
What I'm pointing out here is the extent to which the theory of evolution as we popularly know it today still serves to inform sci-fi television. To say we evolved from a "lower" form of life is to give us, in our view, a certain degree of independence. It is gratifying to the human ego to believe that we, of our own free will, arose out of some primordial soup to become masters of all we see, and this, I think, is the reason that the theory of evolution as most of us know it is so popular. If we were to suggest that we did not "evolve" but instead were created for a specific purpose (either malevolent or benevolent), even in the fiction of sci-fi television, that possibility is doubtless more than the average human mind can bear. That is, unfortunately, the state of our culture today--without anchor, without a root in anything beyond ourselves.
Christians need to expose their children to this worldview at some point--they will be exposed to it whether they like it or not--but we can do it in a way that also exposes them to the raw truth of what this worldview has wrought in human civilization. Yes, we have done marvelous things--splitting the atom, sending rockets into space--but we have done so at the cost of millions of human lives, lives snuffed out in two world wars, 40 years of brushfire wars, and even now, 2 decades after we said the story of war was over. And we consider ourselves superior somehow to the feudal societies that invented new, horrible ways to execute people and that stamped out free thought and free expression with the sword. However, the difference between those people and us is simply that in their belief system--Christianity--the acts did not reflect the values that the perpetrators claimed to reflect (which is why, eventually, the society of the Middle Ages collapsed). However, in our era, our brutal acts DO reflect the values that we claim to believe in--survival of the fittest--and hence, I believe, we will continue to see a downward spiral within our society, until at last we may find ourselves reaching the point of no return.
If I remember correctly, this is the beginning of the "Where is Daniel Jackson?" argument that plagued the series. I think that the main reason why Daniel Jackson was slighted for a while is simply that the show has another, better "partner" for O'Neil--Samantha Carter. Think about it--she fulfills the same scientific role as Jackson did in the movie, and she also does a good job of building a rapport with O'Neil in the first episodes of the show. Basically, she's a replacement for Daniel, and I think this is something that the producers of the show had a hard time working out for the first several seasons. (Frankly, I'm not sure if they ever got it right.)
As for the story of godhood versus humanity, we find that "the truth" of our existence is that while we "evolved" on Earth, we were "discovered" by the evil space aliens who show themselves in the movie, the series pilot, and this episode and transplanted to hundreds of other worlds for use as (to put it bluntly) livestock. This is fine--I'm all for the idea of presenting human beings as farm animals cultivated by other beings (though I think it is not in accord with the Christian perspective of a God who lovingly creates each one of us as unique, special creatures)--but really, if you're willing to say that we were farmed by alien beings on hundreds of worlds so that they could use our bodies, why would it be necessary for us to have "evolved" at all? Might it not also be possible that the same beings who "farmed" us also genetically engineered us as a perfect "host" race designed to suit their needs?
What I'm pointing out here is the extent to which the theory of evolution as we popularly know it today still serves to inform sci-fi television. To say we evolved from a "lower" form of life is to give us, in our view, a certain degree of independence. It is gratifying to the human ego to believe that we, of our own free will, arose out of some primordial soup to become masters of all we see, and this, I think, is the reason that the theory of evolution as most of us know it is so popular. If we were to suggest that we did not "evolve" but instead were created for a specific purpose (either malevolent or benevolent), even in the fiction of sci-fi television, that possibility is doubtless more than the average human mind can bear. That is, unfortunately, the state of our culture today--without anchor, without a root in anything beyond ourselves.
Christians need to expose their children to this worldview at some point--they will be exposed to it whether they like it or not--but we can do it in a way that also exposes them to the raw truth of what this worldview has wrought in human civilization. Yes, we have done marvelous things--splitting the atom, sending rockets into space--but we have done so at the cost of millions of human lives, lives snuffed out in two world wars, 40 years of brushfire wars, and even now, 2 decades after we said the story of war was over. And we consider ourselves superior somehow to the feudal societies that invented new, horrible ways to execute people and that stamped out free thought and free expression with the sword. However, the difference between those people and us is simply that in their belief system--Christianity--the acts did not reflect the values that the perpetrators claimed to reflect (which is why, eventually, the society of the Middle Ages collapsed). However, in our era, our brutal acts DO reflect the values that we claim to believe in--survival of the fittest--and hence, I believe, we will continue to see a downward spiral within our society, until at last we may find ourselves reaching the point of no return.
The Legend of She-Ra: Another Trip Back to the '80s
I'm well aware of the (rather stupid) controversy that surrounded He-Man and She-Ra during the 1980's in the conservative Christian community, and I have to admit that much of the Christian reaction to those 2 shows, while well-intentioned, had such a weird tone of alarmism to it that it drove a lot of kids my age to want to watch those shows even more. Let's get one thing straight here, ladies and gentlemen: Neither of these 2 television shows' title characters are guilty of much more than bare naked commercialism (and I choose the words "bare naked" carefully--remember how much skin both characters showed on screen?), although I will say that She-Ra's magical powers of healing and animal telepathy bespeak of a loving animator's romantization of women (Yes, they can be physically strong, but they still must be kind to animals and healing to everyone else.).
However, what struck me as I watched the 5 part miniseries that brought He-Man's twin sister into the world was that the cute, fuzzy celebration of paganism that most Christian alarmist writers were MISSING during the '80s lay in the supporting characters--specially the little purple witch and her talking broom from the She-Ra series and Orko the floating wannabe magician from the He-Man series. It's especially overt in She-Ra because the little purple witch and her talking broom (both of whose names escape me at the moment) are forest creatures, and the paganism they so cheerfully represent is a paganism of forests, glades, and nature. (Really, I had the sense throughout the television mini-series that I was watching a really long episode of the Smurfs--except with ray guns and a villain who could change into a rocket.)
You see, it's never been EASTERN mysticism that has posed any real opposition to Christianity within America. After all, while many of us "dig" Yoga, Buddhism, and meditation, we look at these things as foreign concepts, alien to the colonial roots that spawned the first 13 American states. However, WESTERN mysticism feels downright homey to us. All of those wonderful creatures--elves, wizards, and little blue people who live in mushrooms--living in the forest, worshiping the trees, the grass, the sky, and all of the wonderful creations of our God . . . all of those images go right down into the deepest recesses of who we Westerners are and used to be before Christianity became the official religion of Rome. This is the kind of religion we feel most at home with--a religion that we, in our twenty-first century angst over the ways we are destroying our world with technology, feel stirring more earnestly inside our collective bones every day.
It is this "innocent" celebration of paganism, through characters that serve as comic relief, that should be a concern to Christians. I don't think that we are being subjected to some sort of mass Hollywood New Age conspiracy, as some Christian writers would have you believe (come on, we all know everyone's god in Hollywood is MONEY, right?). However, I do think that it's important for Christians to recognize when they are watching (or letting their children watch) things that may run counter to their beliefs. And the best way to respond, when they do find their beliefs at odds with what they're watching, is the same response that Christian leaders should have been advocating in the '80s: a silent turn of the knob, a simple willingness to say, "My family doesn't watch certain things on television because that's not what we believe," rather than loudly proclaiming the evils of the latest popular form of entertainment to anyone within earshot of our shrill voices.
There are a lot of good things about both of these 2 shows. Both title characters teach children what it is to be a hero and to sacrifice for others. However, if I had known the history of some of the comic relief images that went into those shows when I was watching them (in other words, if I had know then as a little kid what I know now), I would take the spells, the sorcery, and the "sources of power" with a MAJOR grain of salt. However, the fact that I DO know what I know now enables me to help my children see what their culture is feeding them. Without that knowledge, they will ultimately be left where I was when I was little--spiritually unarmed.
However, what struck me as I watched the 5 part miniseries that brought He-Man's twin sister into the world was that the cute, fuzzy celebration of paganism that most Christian alarmist writers were MISSING during the '80s lay in the supporting characters--specially the little purple witch and her talking broom from the She-Ra series and Orko the floating wannabe magician from the He-Man series. It's especially overt in She-Ra because the little purple witch and her talking broom (both of whose names escape me at the moment) are forest creatures, and the paganism they so cheerfully represent is a paganism of forests, glades, and nature. (Really, I had the sense throughout the television mini-series that I was watching a really long episode of the Smurfs--except with ray guns and a villain who could change into a rocket.)
You see, it's never been EASTERN mysticism that has posed any real opposition to Christianity within America. After all, while many of us "dig" Yoga, Buddhism, and meditation, we look at these things as foreign concepts, alien to the colonial roots that spawned the first 13 American states. However, WESTERN mysticism feels downright homey to us. All of those wonderful creatures--elves, wizards, and little blue people who live in mushrooms--living in the forest, worshiping the trees, the grass, the sky, and all of the wonderful creations of our God . . . all of those images go right down into the deepest recesses of who we Westerners are and used to be before Christianity became the official religion of Rome. This is the kind of religion we feel most at home with--a religion that we, in our twenty-first century angst over the ways we are destroying our world with technology, feel stirring more earnestly inside our collective bones every day.
It is this "innocent" celebration of paganism, through characters that serve as comic relief, that should be a concern to Christians. I don't think that we are being subjected to some sort of mass Hollywood New Age conspiracy, as some Christian writers would have you believe (come on, we all know everyone's god in Hollywood is MONEY, right?). However, I do think that it's important for Christians to recognize when they are watching (or letting their children watch) things that may run counter to their beliefs. And the best way to respond, when they do find their beliefs at odds with what they're watching, is the same response that Christian leaders should have been advocating in the '80s: a silent turn of the knob, a simple willingness to say, "My family doesn't watch certain things on television because that's not what we believe," rather than loudly proclaiming the evils of the latest popular form of entertainment to anyone within earshot of our shrill voices.
There are a lot of good things about both of these 2 shows. Both title characters teach children what it is to be a hero and to sacrifice for others. However, if I had known the history of some of the comic relief images that went into those shows when I was watching them (in other words, if I had know then as a little kid what I know now), I would take the spells, the sorcery, and the "sources of power" with a MAJOR grain of salt. However, the fact that I DO know what I know now enables me to help my children see what their culture is feeding them. Without that knowledge, they will ultimately be left where I was when I was little--spiritually unarmed.
Friday, June 25, 2010
The Obama/McChrystal Show
I normally like to stay away from news commentary (either on television or anywhere else--unless it's on NPR, and then I try to read between the lines so I don't end up swallowing what NPR wants me to swallow), but I thought this whole day-long drama that revolved around General McChrystal's firing by President Obama earlier this week demonstrated exactly what is wrong with American news media today. I'll put it simply: If you watch the news channels--ANY of the news channels--you are watching the masculinely correct version of a soap opera. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, that's right--a soap opera. Let me break the Obama/McChrystal show down for you in classic TV preview format:
"Will McChrystal be fired? What will this mean for Obama's war strategy? Who will Obama hire to replace McChrystal? Tune in tomorrow--same time, same channel."
Come on, ladies and gentlemen. All of you who have at least some inkling of maturity know that if you talk trash about your employer, you get fired. People who post garbage about their bosses or companies' policies on Twitter or Facebook get canned left and right. Why do you think it would be any different for a general serving under the Commander-in-Chief?
Personally, I don't believe we actually have news channels or news services in America. Instead, we have news ENTERTAINMENT channels, news ENTERTAINMENT services, and news ENTERTAINMENT programming, all designed to bring the oldest reality TV show to the American small screen. And you, my fellow American, are in all likelihood stupid enough to tune in, cloaking your desire for soap opera-style entertainment in the guise of wanting to be an informed citizen. Make no mistake--I'm not blaming the news entertainment industry for the way it presents its news--I'm blaming YOU for sparking the DEMAND for this sort of nonsense. The minute that all of you couch potatoes out there turn off CNN AND Fox News, wake up, and begin to participate in our society as informed citizens--instead of letting talk show hosts tell you what you should be concerned about (and what you should think)--the sooner we as a society will start seeing some REAL SOLUTIONS to our problems.
Find what I said insulting? GOOD. Maybe someone needs to come along and wake your sorry rear end up out of your talk show induced, entertainment addicted stupor so that you can see that government for the people, of the people, and BY the people is deadly serious business. Do you know who your elected representatives are? Do you care? Have you any concern about the way things are going in your country, BEYOND your interest in staying tuned to the latest nonsense about the latest so-called government "outrage" on your favorite news entertainment channel? Well, then, maybe you should read, and more importantly, maybe you should become a little more active in supporting the things YOU believe in. So my question to you is this: Are you going to let corporate interests whose lifeblood is making sure you are entertained rather than informed tell you what to get upset about . . . or are you going to get out of that chair and find out for yourself?
This is America. It's your country. Maybe you should start acting like it.
"Will McChrystal be fired? What will this mean for Obama's war strategy? Who will Obama hire to replace McChrystal? Tune in tomorrow--same time, same channel."
Come on, ladies and gentlemen. All of you who have at least some inkling of maturity know that if you talk trash about your employer, you get fired. People who post garbage about their bosses or companies' policies on Twitter or Facebook get canned left and right. Why do you think it would be any different for a general serving under the Commander-in-Chief?
Personally, I don't believe we actually have news channels or news services in America. Instead, we have news ENTERTAINMENT channels, news ENTERTAINMENT services, and news ENTERTAINMENT programming, all designed to bring the oldest reality TV show to the American small screen. And you, my fellow American, are in all likelihood stupid enough to tune in, cloaking your desire for soap opera-style entertainment in the guise of wanting to be an informed citizen. Make no mistake--I'm not blaming the news entertainment industry for the way it presents its news--I'm blaming YOU for sparking the DEMAND for this sort of nonsense. The minute that all of you couch potatoes out there turn off CNN AND Fox News, wake up, and begin to participate in our society as informed citizens--instead of letting talk show hosts tell you what you should be concerned about (and what you should think)--the sooner we as a society will start seeing some REAL SOLUTIONS to our problems.
Find what I said insulting? GOOD. Maybe someone needs to come along and wake your sorry rear end up out of your talk show induced, entertainment addicted stupor so that you can see that government for the people, of the people, and BY the people is deadly serious business. Do you know who your elected representatives are? Do you care? Have you any concern about the way things are going in your country, BEYOND your interest in staying tuned to the latest nonsense about the latest so-called government "outrage" on your favorite news entertainment channel? Well, then, maybe you should read, and more importantly, maybe you should become a little more active in supporting the things YOU believe in. So my question to you is this: Are you going to let corporate interests whose lifeblood is making sure you are entertained rather than informed tell you what to get upset about . . . or are you going to get out of that chair and find out for yourself?
This is America. It's your country. Maybe you should start acting like it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)