It has been alluded to in this blog that I'm a fan of the current, revisionist take on Battlestar Galactica. Now...I know the title conjures up images of one of the campiest cash-ins on Star Wars-mania (tied with the far more entertaining Flash Gordon remake, with its classic Queen theme song). I know the Sci-Fi Channel is not known for its classy original programming. I know the word "frak" is beyond ridiculous, especially used in context like "mother-frakker" or Starbuck saying "all I want to do right now is frak." And I know that there's something inherently geeky about watching a continuity-and-mythology-drenched space opera on a weekly basis, let alone spending a lot of other time thinking and/or talking about it.
But it's the best dramatic show on television now that HBO's big trifecta of The Sopranos, Deadwood, and The Wire are all over. Ronald Moore somehow took the core concept of the original show--a show of which I'm not even remotely a big fan--and turned it into the most compelling outer-space sci-fi show ever (the most compelling sci-fi show ever might still be The X-Files, in my opinion, but that's my 90s conspiracy enthusiasm talking. Same reason I love The Invisibles and The Illuminatus! Trilogy. I don't buy into conspiracy theories, necessarily, but I do find them entertaining as hell). Nearly everything about this show is interesting, from the unusual-for-a-space-opera emphasis on psychological realism to the still-developing Cylon mythology, but the show's most obvious distinction is the allegorical aspect. Now, anybody can write a direct parable about modern politics set in space, if it's obvious and heavy-handed enough. But BSG's plot arcs start out seeming to represent one thing, only to transform into something else entirely. It's like liquid metaphor, or something. Nobody's preconceptions about the show's politics are safe, which is a big part of why I'm going to continue watching Battlestar every Friday until this (the last season) wraps up.
It's sort of funny that Dwight from the U.S. Office likes this show so much, considering how literally he takes things. I've known nerds like that--and I use the word "nerd" with mixed affection and frustration; just keep in mind that I am the sort of person who is reasonably comfortable in comic book stores--these fantasy-militaristic guys whose politics are mostly informed by Robert Howard's Conan stories, Heinlein's Starship Troopers (but they hate Paul Verhoeven's hilarious subversion of everything the original book stands for. Guess which version I prefer?), and Ayn Rand. I remember reading Neal Stephenson's awesome Cryptonomicon, an epic tome that can only really be described as "post-modern math-fi" but is way more entertaining than that term would imply, and recognizing all the nerdy archetypes who showed up in the book. Many were these hardcore individualist/libertarian types who wouldn't understand human interaction if they studied it for a lifetime. It's just weird to me how much that stereotype rings true in a lot of cases. I don't know how to wrap this up but the blogs were due ten minutes ago. I guess my point is that people shouldn't determine their politics based on what they would have to believe in to survive as a barbarian in The Hyborian Age.
One more note:
It sounds like I watch more TV than I actually do. I have a handful of shows I really like and watch every week, but beyond that I rarely partake. I know lots of people who watch TV for the sake of watching TV, but don't really "follow" shows, but I only watch TV if there's something in particular I want to watch (incidentally, my Top 5 favorite TV shows would probably be The Wire, Freaks and Geeks, Mr. Show with Bob and David, Arrested Development, and Futurama. I can hear the cries of "Hipster douchebag!" and "What, isn't CSI good enough for you?!" from here...). Just wanted that to be clear.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment