OT - Not voting...

B5JMS Poster b5jms-owner at shekel.mcl.cs.columbia.edu
Wed Sep 20 04:53:00 EDT 2000

From: Rick <rick at redx.demon.co.uk>
Date: 19 Sep 2000 10:10:42 -0700
Lines: 55

>>So I'm wondering: in the above scenario, would *you* have considered
>>writing Sinclair as anti-Union? Or would you worry that by putting
>>vaguely illiberal attitudes in the mouth of the lead character - the
>>person the audience are most likely to identify with - the story risked
>>being misinterpreted; a milder form of the sort of problem Paul Schrader
>>encountered with audience reaction to Travis Bickle, for example?
>Why must the protagonist be anti-union for the union to lose?  There are other
>ways of doing the story.  
> jms

I think I phrased that really badly -- sorry!! No, the story would
clearly work either way: whether the dockers came out on top or not. But
what I wondered was whether - whoever won in the end - you'd contemplate
having your top-billed, most audience-friendly character (Sinclair)
stand alongside EarthGov interests against them.

My suspicion is that, were *I* in the position of the writer, I'd be
very uneasy about putting illiberal attitudes in the mouth of my lead
character, lest they be interpreted as *my* attitudes too! (Probably one
reason why I'd be a rotten writer...) I always think of Schrader and
Taxi Driver here - he went to every possible length to show Travis
Bickle as a lost, confused, unbalanced and dangerous loser - and a
segment of the audience *still* took him to their breasts as a hero!

It's like Shakespeare... He puts a stupid, obvious phrase in the mouth
of a none-too-bright character like Polonius in Hamlet, but over the
years "Neither a borrower... etc" becomes treated as a phrase of great
wisdom, on the basis that Shakespeare wrote it. The fact he wrote it for
Polonius gets forgotten.

Anyway, thanks for listening. I'm sorry to keep going on about "By Any
Means Necessary" - I know it ain't even one of yours! - but it is one of
the most explicitly political episodes, and therefore a good backdrop to
imagine these sort of issues against.

Incidentally, while I'm on, I just want to say that - having just
watched Season 5 for the third time - I think those of us who didn't
appreciate it at first were way off base. It was a fabulous ending, and
if it didn't *quite* reach the peaks of the 3rd and 4th years - well, it
came damn close! Thanks.

>(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
>B5 Official Fan Club at:
>(all message content (c) 2000 by
>synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
>to reprint specifically denied to
>SFX Magazine)


From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: 19 Sep 2000 12:52:16 -0700
Lines: 23

>what I wondered was whether - whoever won in the end - you'd contemplate
>having your top-billed, most audience-friendly character (Sinclair)
>stand alongside EarthGov interests against them.

I'd have no problem with that propect.  As long as a character has a logical,
justifiable reason for taking a particular stance, it's all grist for the mill.
 Why shouldn't he take that stance if he genuinely believes it's right?


(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)

-*** B5JMS SUBSCRIBERS: Replies to messages go to the list maintainer,
-*** <b5jms-owner at cs.columbia.edu>.  If you want to reply elsewhere, adjust
-*** the "To" field.  See http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~ezk/b5jms/ for all
-*** other information about this list.

More information about the B5JMS mailing list