This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"What'd you all order a dead guy for?"
11945 members | you are not logged in | 25 October 2014




Tweet







August 10 2009

Morena Baccarin on V- Political Observations. Morena sounds off about the political implications of the new show V, where she plays an alien "ambassador."

Not a fan of how the columnist compares the show producers' facial expressions/reactions to celebrities. Just sounded a bit snarkier than I like in a newspaper article (although columnists in the Entertainment sections often do seem to put more of themselves in their articles than in most other sections of the paper).

Interesting, but I doubt the series is a slap at the Obama administration (especially since, as pointed out, the show was conceived and the initial few episodes written while Bush was still in power). Gotta wait and see before we jump the gun like some of the press in that article (their jumping the gun makes for a more worthwhile story, of course, plus there's nothing wrong with some speculation even this early).
There's a school of thought that wonders if the producers are talking up the political angle cause there's not much else going for the show. I can see this being an early casualty of the ratings wars.
There'd be nothing inherently wrong if they were deliberately using Obama rhetoric. BSG frequently put things I agree with in the mouths of bad people, and things I disagree with in the mouths of good people. It's a device that can be used to good dramatic and narrative effect in the right hands.
Sure, Obama is the incumbent now, that makes him fair game for comment, examination, satire and metaphor.

In general the article clearly had a point to make which was thinly supported by the evidence and somewhat bolstered by using loaded words like "spinning madly" or "lacking verve" to describe the statements of those involved. Sometimes I don't mind a slightly catty style if it's funny, otherwise I don't really see the point personally.

As the article mentions, the original mini-series was pretty overtly anti-fascist (with Holocaust allusions etc. - hell, the 'V' itself is from WWII) and yet the Visitors still made all sort of promises to the people of Earth about what they intended to do for us. So in other words, (apparently) opposite political position, same/similar actions. Which would seem to undermine the article's thesis slightly.

(and doesn't "sounds off" connote slightly more stridency than is really there in Morena's comment ?)
Sure, Obama is the incumbent now, that makes him fair game for comment, examination, satire and metaphor.


As long as no one actually presumes to comment, examine, satirize or... metaphor..izermorate?

What are the Visitors if not the fascist parens patriae? Such a thing can take the more overtly despotic form of the original series and it's stark WWII allegory, or perhaps this new version will explore the much more relevant -- and ongoing? -- "soft despotism" described so ably by de Tocqueville in "Democracy in America". Either way, as an old "V" fan, I'll check it out.
Unfortunately I think the reviewer does pick up a valid point though. As much as the people who watch things like BSG and Dollhouse can get the "shades" of everything, if this show becomes championed by one political faction in the United States it could be a very bad thing for the show.

If it gets championed by conservatives early and alienates liberals early or vice versa, that's going to have a major negative impact on the ratings. Or, worse it will have high ratings but they'll be tied to one specific political ideology which will make for a wildly uninteresting show as they attempt to never alienate their core audience.

If they're smart, someone will be looking for tactics of both parties and try to stay as close to 1:1 as possible when scripting the visitors. It might make things more difficult to write, but on network TV people will be very quick to point out bias if they see it.

[ edited by azzers on 2009-08-11 06:52 ]
As long as no one actually presumes to comment, examine, satirize or... metaphor..izermorate?

Obviously we're also allowed to examine the comments, examinations, satire or metaphor. This article is clearly biased from the outset and does little to prove its case beyond slip in loaded words and phrases.

Being open to criticism doesn't mean every criticism is equally valid.
Man. What an awkwardly written article. And rather off putting. If I wasn't already interested in the series... that would discourage me.

Don't you wonder who the unnamed critics worked for? (i.e. news agency affiliation) Or what other types of questions were asked and answered?

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home