Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
deep said:
Clowns ARE scary!
The political 4400, more insightful than Heroes, link inside
- Thread starter Muldfeld
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Clowns ARE scary!
Totally. It doesn't compare at all with BSG. I'm just saying it's a heck of a lot better than Heroes. Maybe try the 3rd season finale? That was great. I'm with you on this being a so-so episode, though the clowns thing was less than a minute and didn't it remind you of Kramer? The mythology stuff is in 3 weeks. Thanks, though, bub. I thought the stuff about Kyle has been pretty good.deep said:
Last edited:
Dalton said:
Okay, this first batch of episodes have been kinda lame with the standalone plots, but the continuing story has been good. They keep trying the X-Files route with these subplots and fail miserably, but these devices are getting better.
I'm not saying it's the greatest thing (that would be BSG), but it's a heck of a lot better than Heroes in terms of dramatic realism, and Grey's Anatomy, and even 24, which is incredibly formulaic.
The relationship between Tom and Kyle is much more real and interesting (as is the acting) than the cheerleader and Mr. Bennett or Noah and his mom and dad, who are all awful actors. Tom's love for his son can be insensitive and controlling, at times, but he's really trying, unlike the uber-evil parent generation on Heroes, which is just unrealistic. Even the way Diana took her sister's boyfriend was an understandable dilemma and one that really had me feel for both of them. The sister's reaction very much reminded me of how I feel with regard to my older, more successful brothers.
I thought there was quite a bit of conflict between Shawn and Jordan Collier throughout the show's short run -- first over how Jordan treats his employees and then over the whole promicin thing and the support of terrorists was all about ends and means. Notice how there is no overwhelming evil in the show. Ryland's side and Jordan's side are equally given their due, much as the war on terrorism is quite complicated. There's a lot more political insight on this show than Heroes which just rips off X-Men simplicities.
You're right, though, Jordan is the best character on the show (and I also really liked Matthew). His doubts at the start of this season were quite interesting. Every revolutinary throughout history must have their doubts but they don't project them publicly. It was also interesting to see a conflict between his desire to save everyone from that school kid (okay, that subplot was kinda lame, too) and his attempt to eliminate the challenge to his messiah complex.
I also like that the show is positing that superpowers pose their own problem in society. Heroes touched on this a bit with the future episode and how Sylar/Nathan was creating a two-class society, but this show is starting to delve a bit into this and may do a better job. It also shows what a terrible curse some powers can be -- not in the sense that you can be corrupted by this amazing power -- but that the power itself can actually suck or be very uncool.
Anyway, Jordan is only going to be in 10 of the 13 episodes, so if you are even considering watching the show again, maybe skip the next couple of shows. This season promises to mostly answer the questions posed in the miniseries and subsequent seasons. But only the full-on mythology eps are probably gonna do it.
Thanks for watching this, man. You should definitely check out BSG. Hope your hospital stay hasn't been too bad.
Last edited:
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
I tried not to evaluate the show by comparing it to another show, but it looks like that is how this thread has turned out (no surprise considering its title).
For my money Heroes is better on every level. It has a more compelling premise. It has INFINITELY better writing. It has much better acting AND its action scenes are better. Frankly I would recommend the 4400 to Heroes fans who need a genre fix while there show is on hiatus.
For my money Heroes is better on every level. It has a more compelling premise. It has INFINITELY better writing. It has much better acting AND its action scenes are better. Frankly I would recommend the 4400 to Heroes fans who need a genre fix while there show is on hiatus.
You know, I just don't see how based on your criteria for why you had problems with The 4400, you can endorse Heroes, unless you're not being forthcoming about why you really like Heroes -- which is probably the action and suspense of people dying. It has a much bigger budget for action effects. No one on that show reacts emotionally believably and the acting is attrotious; I don't see how you can deny that.Dalton said:
However, I'll gladly accept the endorsement for Heroes fans to watch this!
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
Here's what I find funny. You come on here and ask people to check out the show you like and see if it is better than Heroes.
I did that. It isn't.
Listen, I am a casual fan of Heroes, so I don't really have an ax to grind here. Yet I would rate Heroes as better in a all aspects of the show.
You hit out at Heroes for its bad acting, but its been a while since I've seen an actor as bad as Tom Baldwin. The scenes between he and his son are terrible. Was he a day time Soap star before he did this show?
You asked. I answered. You're welcome.
I did that. It isn't.
Listen, I am a casual fan of Heroes, so I don't really have an ax to grind here. Yet I would rate Heroes as better in a all aspects of the show.
You hit out at Heroes for its bad acting, but its been a while since I've seen an actor as bad as Tom Baldwin. The scenes between he and his son are terrible. Was he a day time Soap star before he did this show?
You asked. I answered. You're welcome.
Yeah, that's fine. You can disagree. I didn't say you couldn't but I'm just debating your arguments. I'm not ungrateful for your trying the show out.Dalton said:
I will also grant that Heroes is more exciting, at some level, but I think a lot of this is having the budget to do cool things like cut people's heads of and make it look good. It's a lot more expensive than scary clowns, and I've admitted that the start of this season of The 4400 has been a missed opportunity. From the start, I've said the show has problems, but I think a character like Jordan Collier is far more imaginative and interesting than the best character on Heroes, Sylar.
Actually he was involved in projects by Steven Spielberg, including Minority Report. He's a terrific actor and far better than anyone on Heroes.Dalton said:
The major mythology story finally starts this Sunday. I can't wait.
Things are really heating up on The 4400 with lots of great insight into radical religiosity and believable commentary on faith. Also, some political campaign stuff, though I could have done without the Nazism allegories, which are a bit stale. This is the most politically-insightful show after The Wire and BSG -- easily!
Episodes are starting to heat, up though this could have been a little better, it did have some interesting political commentary on religious conviction, but not in a condescending way.
http://stage6.divx.com/user/zib4ever/video/1432970/4400-4x05-vostfr
http://stage6.divx.com/user/zib4ever/video/1432970/4400-4x05-vostfr
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
Muldfeld said:
Matthew McCaunahey was also involved in Speilberg projects, does that make him a good actor?
I believe a number of actors in Heroes trump him in acting skill. Case in point - watch the 7-15-07 show. I was trying to decide which was worse, the script or his acting. The scene right after his eating of the apple pie was mind numbing.
I will watch last nights show tomorrow, but if it isn't better then it will be my last. This season has been an absolute waste.
Yeah, I have problems with that scene, too, but a lot of other stuff with Jordan and Kyle was great and had a lot more to say about human nature than Heroes ever has. You're dead wrong about Tom Baldwin. He's extremely emotional and that may look like overacting, but I'm like that, too, and there are many quirks and subtleties to his acting (as when he reacted to the question of whether he fantasized about Diana) you'll never find among the cast of Heroes, except maybe Sylar -- maybe the Petrellis.
Here's my review of the okay episode you mentioned, "Try the Pie." You might find we agree on a lot.
My review
I feel conflicted by this episode because I loved the Kyle/Jordan Collier storyline and much of the Shawn/Diana/Maia storyline (except major reservations about the political commentary which I'll discuss later), but the spooky small town theme especially upset the show for me, and I don't exactly know why except that it just wasn't fully engaging. Some of the political themes relating to Maia's dream and emotional drama relating to the townsfolk seemed a bit "on the nose" -- a bit too self-conscious and not subtle enough. The most awkward but striking element was the use of the magic pie, which allowed a level of understanding among those in the room. I wonder if it's not promicin that is the key to world peace, but this pie -- probably drenched in some promicin injectee's super sweat -- because it is so often the lack of understanding of the other’s experiences that distances people in our world, and allows homogenization and dehumanization of the unfamiliar.
Regarding the townsfolk, I think it's fair to say the show has real trouble making stand-alone characters deserving of any moment of the small amount of episodes granted each year for The 4400. While I understand the need to match a certain realism in not having a select few be the only pivotal players, and conveying a more believable interconnectedness between our beloved main and recurring characters and newer or standalone ones to better reflect how society functions, the drama that grows out of this is less than satisfying. The best thing a dull character like Boyd Gelder did in Season 3, after wasting an entire episode like “Being Tom Baldwin,” was to die as a suicide bomber in the amazing season finale in a fantastic moment of political commentary about the nature of terrorism. While such characters may serve a purpose narratively for setting up such dramatic moments or affecting the setting for the better-written characters, they rarely seem very interesting; there was something cringe-worth in how that boy yelled like The X-Men's Banshee, which even Bryan Singer struggled to make believable or interesting; some powers just look silly. Some rare exceptions are Heather Tobey and Gary Navarro, who became much more interesting after their debuts. Perhaps, then, some characters are just slow to develop, but this is hardly reassuring in this show's 4th season in which every rare episode needs to be a home-run.
As usual, Kyle was fantastic in every way and I really enjoyed Jordan Collier's behavior. Instead of the reassured messianic figure I expected, he delivered some surprising moments of toughness, suspicion and uncertainty in his interaction with Kyle and especially Isabelle; I did wonder if she looked terrified enough, but perhaps she's still emotionally underdeveloped. (I just re-watched Season 3's “Graduation Day” and was reminded what a great actress she is.) I especially liked the complicated but understandable position Jordan took on injecting Tom by frighteningly taking away the latter's right to choose because of his trust of Kyle's zealous desire to fulfill fate, but later -- perhaps finding more certainty in his position -- encouraging Kyle to let Tom's free will play itself out. Also, there was some very truthful and engaging commentary on religion and political activism/terrorism that played out in this subplot. One can make comparisons between Kyle and the average faithful follower of any cause searching for meaning, be they student activist, violent revolutionary, or present-day potential fundamentalist Muslim martyr or fundamentalist Evangelical Christian -- as I saw on the documentary "Jesus Camp". For now, Jordan Collier has shown more grace and restraint than some fundamentalist Muslim clerics, but that may change if his faith in the book's prophesy is placed in doubt.
The subplot with Shawn was pretty good and there were some tense moments when it seemed Shawn was going to kill Gabriel Hewitt. Still, I found the subplot a bit of a departure from the realism for which the show aims -- on the first level, regarding the details of human interaction and, on the second, the political insight the show usually does so well. Gabriel Hewitt's remarks to the media seemed a bit too obviously against Shawn for his identity as a 4400. While this would definitely be emphasized in a real campaign, politicians usually use code language to avoid appearing bigoted. Then again, the perceived threat of The 4400 might allow people to be so overt; talk radio (including Glen Beck) certainly has no trouble taking shots at Muslims and Arabs as inherently inferior, I suppose. What I found most unbelievable was Hewitt's confession to Shawn that he had nothing against him personally, but was just using the national platform his campaign brought to elevate himself in the public spotlight. I just can’t imagine a ruthless political rival speaking so honestly if he expects to win, even if the motivations Hewitt revealed were a refreshingly unique and believable spin on the usual depiction of campaigns.
The political commentary of the Shawn/Hewitt/Diana/Maia storyline was what I found especially lacking because it employed such an obvious and cliché set of Nazi themes of persecution. So often recalled in sci-fi and other forms of Western storytelling and exploited for dramatic foreboding, threats of totalitarian Communism and Nazism are actually rarer than the more subtle and much more widespread economic and social discrimination and other forms of human cruelty that have occurred in history and, with our electoral consent in present times, continue to threaten human beings. As a result, viewers may take the message to wait until Nazi-like circumstances surround them before taking a stand, when there are so many other ways in which human viciousness manifests itself -- often with democratic consent.
While themes reflecting the threats of Communism and Nazism are worth remembering, their continual emphasis in American culture reflects less their relevance as continuing challenges to the human experience than the fact these were threats to America and its peoples. Obsession with these experiences reflects a kind of nationalist bias in which America's cultural practices of excessive individualism and capitalist profit priorities are never questioned; only the institution of slavery is emphasized comfortably because it can be relegated to the distant past as unAmerican.
The complex challenges facing American society within and without are far more indicative of those facing other societies, where the extreme circumstances leading to and part of Nazism and totalitarian Communism are unlikely to occur, and where the lessons of these political organizations are inapplicable. It would be more worthwhile to explore actions that have been practiced by the American government since its inception toward native Americans and other ethnic groups (colonialism), and toward Latin America and other peoples the world over indirectly through support of despotic regimes (in the name of anti-Communism) or defense of exploitative multilateral corporations (neo-colonialism, Capitalism, neo-liberalism) which don't take the form of overt Nazi fascism but have shattered many lives and their hopes for democratic freedom and equality. Many other societies are guilty of or likely to practice comparable actions, which means there is a greater truth and likelihood to the human experience we can decipher when we examine such frequently-occurring human activity.
Here are two examples of how complicated it is to deal with cruelty when it's not caused by the obvious form of Nazi oppression and intentional harm, but by conflicting freedoms and interests when creating justice for one group creates injustice for another; these scenarios are easily the most frequent causes of injustice, when citizens of more powerful peoples have to take responsibility for their government's policies' unintended consequences, and make hard choices. During the Cold War, the US endorsed unimpeded international capitalism when it favored its interests, while protecting its manufacturers and farmers with tariffs. This allowed America's United Fruit Company to bribe the Guatemalan government to let it confiscate common land shared by natives and establish bogus property rights. The UFC turned natives into an exploited labor force if they wanted to stay, and made them into indentured servants to work off the debt from advancing them useless supplies. The UFC replaced subsistence crops on which the inhabitants lived with cash crops that were poor in nutrition, so they had to enter this new economy to have money to buy food from elsewhere to survive. I saw a documentary year ago about either Chile or Argentina, in which a multilateral corporation is still exploiting people this way. Complete freedom of capital sometimes means the powerless lose their freedom. In this light, the American means of combating Communism could be as bad for non-Americans as the totalitarian threat they were claiming to destroy. Similarly, oversensitivity toward the terrible trauma of the Holocaust has meant much of the West, especially America, has absolved itself of its guilt in allowing its historic anti-Semitism to reach such proportions, and, in compensation, has turned a blind eye toward its support for Israeli colonialism and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The worthwhile principle of defending any social group (Jews, Rwandan Tutsis or anyone else) has become confused with permitting members of a historically-targeted group (Israeli Jews) to engage in aggression against another (Palestinians and Lebanese). The obsession with Nazi racism has permitted Zionist colonialism, in the name of self-defense, to victimize Palestinians, whose grievances are not due to religious identity but practical concerns. Yet all this (in addition to US Cold War interference with democratic roots in the Middle East) has helped the growth of misguided anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in the Muslim world, which is upset by the Palestinian plight. In both these examples, American policy favored justice for one group in such a way that it created injustice for another. It supported the capitalist rights of US corporations, based on the entrepreneurial spirit that building wealth would supposedly trickle down to the poor (though it didn't), and disregarded the rights of Latin Americans, especially the lower class Indios. In the second case, it supported the goals of traumatized Zionist Jews and sympathetic evangelical Christians (President Truman, who supported the creation of Israel against the warnings of many including Secy of State George Marshall, would not let Jews into his home, but believed in the End Times prophesy.) but totally ignored the rights of Palestinians. The latter were chased out of their homes by militant Zionists, and had to live in squalor in refugee camps. Indeed, many liberal Jews (some in Israel) have opposed the occupation or, at least, further settlement of disputed land.
My fear is that sci-fi fans and much of the broader public too often may only regard as the threat of Nazi-like dominance -- as in "V for Vendetta" -- to be the societal tendency to watch out for, when most societies (not just the US) presently often allow much less obvious forms of dehumanization to occur. These terrible things are happening in the world and people should take action and mobilize against it as they did Nazism, but simply don't see these things as threatening or harmful because they don't resemble Nazism or Communist totalitarianism. Most cruelty in this world has not and does not resemble those movements or their aims (however important they were to the 20th Century), but occurs in much more subtle and widespread ways often with the complicity of the viewing public, which votes for politicians who directly or indirectly participate in or prolong this cruelty. While exploration of Nazism and Communist totalitarianism is important to understanding those kinds of extreme circumstances which affected millions, such allegories hardly depict the dilemmas facing the lives of untold billions who have lived, and who have been impacted by subtler, less concentrated, but nearly as traumatic experiences in the long-term. In short, just because Bill Clinton or George W. Bush is not Hitler doesn't mean any policies they bring about which threaten freedom and create or perpetuate human suffering should not be stopped. Vigilance of this kind against smaller scale cruelty may be a more effective way of pre-empting circumstances from ever reaching desperate levels of Nazism.
In any case, Nazism has been explored to death in fiction. My one hope is that Maia's vision was a kind of surrealism informed by her knowledge of Nazism, just as Shawn's reaction has been, and that none of these far too allegorical references will come to pass. What would be interesting is if, since Shawn, Diana, Maia and most Americans' views of the world and human nature have been affected by the specter of Nazism or Communist totalitarianism, they actually miss out in seeing the real threat that may be growing, and that Gabriel Hewitt may turn out to be a different kind of challenge. That would really be something to mirror our modern times, and point out the flawed way in which Western society engages with "evil." My fear is that it won't be anything as intricate, and that Shawn's storyline involves preventing another Nazi-type solution.
The storyline has been moving much faster than I'd expected.
Good but not great. 7.8 out of 10
I should emphasize that only the rarest of shows get 10 -- only the absolute best episodes of The X-Files ("Talitha Cumi", "Paper Hearts", "Redux II", etc.), Battlestar Galactica ("Pegasus","Lay Down Your Burdens") and Deep Space Nine ("In the Pale Moonlight"). I would give the best episode of The 4400 to date, "Fifty Fifty," around 8.5.
Here's my review of the okay episode you mentioned, "Try the Pie." You might find we agree on a lot.
My review
I feel conflicted by this episode because I loved the Kyle/Jordan Collier storyline and much of the Shawn/Diana/Maia storyline (except major reservations about the political commentary which I'll discuss later), but the spooky small town theme especially upset the show for me, and I don't exactly know why except that it just wasn't fully engaging. Some of the political themes relating to Maia's dream and emotional drama relating to the townsfolk seemed a bit "on the nose" -- a bit too self-conscious and not subtle enough. The most awkward but striking element was the use of the magic pie, which allowed a level of understanding among those in the room. I wonder if it's not promicin that is the key to world peace, but this pie -- probably drenched in some promicin injectee's super sweat -- because it is so often the lack of understanding of the other’s experiences that distances people in our world, and allows homogenization and dehumanization of the unfamiliar.
Regarding the townsfolk, I think it's fair to say the show has real trouble making stand-alone characters deserving of any moment of the small amount of episodes granted each year for The 4400. While I understand the need to match a certain realism in not having a select few be the only pivotal players, and conveying a more believable interconnectedness between our beloved main and recurring characters and newer or standalone ones to better reflect how society functions, the drama that grows out of this is less than satisfying. The best thing a dull character like Boyd Gelder did in Season 3, after wasting an entire episode like “Being Tom Baldwin,” was to die as a suicide bomber in the amazing season finale in a fantastic moment of political commentary about the nature of terrorism. While such characters may serve a purpose narratively for setting up such dramatic moments or affecting the setting for the better-written characters, they rarely seem very interesting; there was something cringe-worth in how that boy yelled like The X-Men's Banshee, which even Bryan Singer struggled to make believable or interesting; some powers just look silly. Some rare exceptions are Heather Tobey and Gary Navarro, who became much more interesting after their debuts. Perhaps, then, some characters are just slow to develop, but this is hardly reassuring in this show's 4th season in which every rare episode needs to be a home-run.
As usual, Kyle was fantastic in every way and I really enjoyed Jordan Collier's behavior. Instead of the reassured messianic figure I expected, he delivered some surprising moments of toughness, suspicion and uncertainty in his interaction with Kyle and especially Isabelle; I did wonder if she looked terrified enough, but perhaps she's still emotionally underdeveloped. (I just re-watched Season 3's “Graduation Day” and was reminded what a great actress she is.) I especially liked the complicated but understandable position Jordan took on injecting Tom by frighteningly taking away the latter's right to choose because of his trust of Kyle's zealous desire to fulfill fate, but later -- perhaps finding more certainty in his position -- encouraging Kyle to let Tom's free will play itself out. Also, there was some very truthful and engaging commentary on religion and political activism/terrorism that played out in this subplot. One can make comparisons between Kyle and the average faithful follower of any cause searching for meaning, be they student activist, violent revolutionary, or present-day potential fundamentalist Muslim martyr or fundamentalist Evangelical Christian -- as I saw on the documentary "Jesus Camp". For now, Jordan Collier has shown more grace and restraint than some fundamentalist Muslim clerics, but that may change if his faith in the book's prophesy is placed in doubt.
The subplot with Shawn was pretty good and there were some tense moments when it seemed Shawn was going to kill Gabriel Hewitt. Still, I found the subplot a bit of a departure from the realism for which the show aims -- on the first level, regarding the details of human interaction and, on the second, the political insight the show usually does so well. Gabriel Hewitt's remarks to the media seemed a bit too obviously against Shawn for his identity as a 4400. While this would definitely be emphasized in a real campaign, politicians usually use code language to avoid appearing bigoted. Then again, the perceived threat of The 4400 might allow people to be so overt; talk radio (including Glen Beck) certainly has no trouble taking shots at Muslims and Arabs as inherently inferior, I suppose. What I found most unbelievable was Hewitt's confession to Shawn that he had nothing against him personally, but was just using the national platform his campaign brought to elevate himself in the public spotlight. I just can’t imagine a ruthless political rival speaking so honestly if he expects to win, even if the motivations Hewitt revealed were a refreshingly unique and believable spin on the usual depiction of campaigns.
The political commentary of the Shawn/Hewitt/Diana/Maia storyline was what I found especially lacking because it employed such an obvious and cliché set of Nazi themes of persecution. So often recalled in sci-fi and other forms of Western storytelling and exploited for dramatic foreboding, threats of totalitarian Communism and Nazism are actually rarer than the more subtle and much more widespread economic and social discrimination and other forms of human cruelty that have occurred in history and, with our electoral consent in present times, continue to threaten human beings. As a result, viewers may take the message to wait until Nazi-like circumstances surround them before taking a stand, when there are so many other ways in which human viciousness manifests itself -- often with democratic consent.
While themes reflecting the threats of Communism and Nazism are worth remembering, their continual emphasis in American culture reflects less their relevance as continuing challenges to the human experience than the fact these were threats to America and its peoples. Obsession with these experiences reflects a kind of nationalist bias in which America's cultural practices of excessive individualism and capitalist profit priorities are never questioned; only the institution of slavery is emphasized comfortably because it can be relegated to the distant past as unAmerican.
The complex challenges facing American society within and without are far more indicative of those facing other societies, where the extreme circumstances leading to and part of Nazism and totalitarian Communism are unlikely to occur, and where the lessons of these political organizations are inapplicable. It would be more worthwhile to explore actions that have been practiced by the American government since its inception toward native Americans and other ethnic groups (colonialism), and toward Latin America and other peoples the world over indirectly through support of despotic regimes (in the name of anti-Communism) or defense of exploitative multilateral corporations (neo-colonialism, Capitalism, neo-liberalism) which don't take the form of overt Nazi fascism but have shattered many lives and their hopes for democratic freedom and equality. Many other societies are guilty of or likely to practice comparable actions, which means there is a greater truth and likelihood to the human experience we can decipher when we examine such frequently-occurring human activity.
Here are two examples of how complicated it is to deal with cruelty when it's not caused by the obvious form of Nazi oppression and intentional harm, but by conflicting freedoms and interests when creating justice for one group creates injustice for another; these scenarios are easily the most frequent causes of injustice, when citizens of more powerful peoples have to take responsibility for their government's policies' unintended consequences, and make hard choices. During the Cold War, the US endorsed unimpeded international capitalism when it favored its interests, while protecting its manufacturers and farmers with tariffs. This allowed America's United Fruit Company to bribe the Guatemalan government to let it confiscate common land shared by natives and establish bogus property rights. The UFC turned natives into an exploited labor force if they wanted to stay, and made them into indentured servants to work off the debt from advancing them useless supplies. The UFC replaced subsistence crops on which the inhabitants lived with cash crops that were poor in nutrition, so they had to enter this new economy to have money to buy food from elsewhere to survive. I saw a documentary year ago about either Chile or Argentina, in which a multilateral corporation is still exploiting people this way. Complete freedom of capital sometimes means the powerless lose their freedom. In this light, the American means of combating Communism could be as bad for non-Americans as the totalitarian threat they were claiming to destroy. Similarly, oversensitivity toward the terrible trauma of the Holocaust has meant much of the West, especially America, has absolved itself of its guilt in allowing its historic anti-Semitism to reach such proportions, and, in compensation, has turned a blind eye toward its support for Israeli colonialism and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The worthwhile principle of defending any social group (Jews, Rwandan Tutsis or anyone else) has become confused with permitting members of a historically-targeted group (Israeli Jews) to engage in aggression against another (Palestinians and Lebanese). The obsession with Nazi racism has permitted Zionist colonialism, in the name of self-defense, to victimize Palestinians, whose grievances are not due to religious identity but practical concerns. Yet all this (in addition to US Cold War interference with democratic roots in the Middle East) has helped the growth of misguided anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism in the Muslim world, which is upset by the Palestinian plight. In both these examples, American policy favored justice for one group in such a way that it created injustice for another. It supported the capitalist rights of US corporations, based on the entrepreneurial spirit that building wealth would supposedly trickle down to the poor (though it didn't), and disregarded the rights of Latin Americans, especially the lower class Indios. In the second case, it supported the goals of traumatized Zionist Jews and sympathetic evangelical Christians (President Truman, who supported the creation of Israel against the warnings of many including Secy of State George Marshall, would not let Jews into his home, but believed in the End Times prophesy.) but totally ignored the rights of Palestinians. The latter were chased out of their homes by militant Zionists, and had to live in squalor in refugee camps. Indeed, many liberal Jews (some in Israel) have opposed the occupation or, at least, further settlement of disputed land.
My fear is that sci-fi fans and much of the broader public too often may only regard as the threat of Nazi-like dominance -- as in "V for Vendetta" -- to be the societal tendency to watch out for, when most societies (not just the US) presently often allow much less obvious forms of dehumanization to occur. These terrible things are happening in the world and people should take action and mobilize against it as they did Nazism, but simply don't see these things as threatening or harmful because they don't resemble Nazism or Communist totalitarianism. Most cruelty in this world has not and does not resemble those movements or their aims (however important they were to the 20th Century), but occurs in much more subtle and widespread ways often with the complicity of the viewing public, which votes for politicians who directly or indirectly participate in or prolong this cruelty. While exploration of Nazism and Communist totalitarianism is important to understanding those kinds of extreme circumstances which affected millions, such allegories hardly depict the dilemmas facing the lives of untold billions who have lived, and who have been impacted by subtler, less concentrated, but nearly as traumatic experiences in the long-term. In short, just because Bill Clinton or George W. Bush is not Hitler doesn't mean any policies they bring about which threaten freedom and create or perpetuate human suffering should not be stopped. Vigilance of this kind against smaller scale cruelty may be a more effective way of pre-empting circumstances from ever reaching desperate levels of Nazism.
In any case, Nazism has been explored to death in fiction. My one hope is that Maia's vision was a kind of surrealism informed by her knowledge of Nazism, just as Shawn's reaction has been, and that none of these far too allegorical references will come to pass. What would be interesting is if, since Shawn, Diana, Maia and most Americans' views of the world and human nature have been affected by the specter of Nazism or Communist totalitarianism, they actually miss out in seeing the real threat that may be growing, and that Gabriel Hewitt may turn out to be a different kind of challenge. That would really be something to mirror our modern times, and point out the flawed way in which Western society engages with "evil." My fear is that it won't be anything as intricate, and that Shawn's storyline involves preventing another Nazi-type solution.
The storyline has been moving much faster than I'd expected.
Good but not great. 7.8 out of 10
I should emphasize that only the rarest of shows get 10 -- only the absolute best episodes of The X-Files ("Talitha Cumi", "Paper Hearts", "Redux II", etc.), Battlestar Galactica ("Pegasus","Lay Down Your Burdens") and Deep Space Nine ("In the Pale Moonlight"). I would give the best episode of The 4400 to date, "Fifty Fifty," around 8.5.
Last edited:
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
Well, I am officially done with the show. Not since Alias has a show fallen on its ass as much as this one. Thankfully it didn't have quite as far to fall ...
My review of "The Marked"
I had a complicated reaction to "The Marked" because I saw the first 8 or so minutes before going to bed and watched the rest when I woke up the next day. Based on the first part, I went to sleep exhausted but excited to watch the rest of what I thought would be a comedic episode; Ira Steven Behr wrote and co-wrote some of the rare science fiction stories that were actually hilarious, so I thought he was overseeing that same kind of work on this show. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately because of the later twists in the story, I was only partly right. The episode quickly shifted from the wonderfully light-hearted tone set by Curtis Peck's funny low-budget b-movies (including the music!) and the resulting characters' humorous yet appropriate reactions to them to seriously acknowledging the growing likelihood of a heretofore ridiculously convoluted-sounding conspiracy. Perhaps that wasn't a bad thing, especially for the deservedly serious Shawn and Jordan/Kyle subplots. Yet, while the grave resolution of the b-movie plot did break new creative ground for this series, that very resolution, in some ways, just felt less compelling and original in science fiction (with its mind-control, implants, and threats from powerful conspirators) than might have been a continuously comedic approach. It's admirable how Craig Sweeny's story self-consciously admits, early on, that such conspiracies are almost cliche in their use in bad science fiction and caricature-like in their preposterousness -- perhaps as a way of pre-empting criticism for this new twist. Yet eventually having the agents won over from their skepticism to an X-Filesian paranoia due to overwhelming evidence hardly makes this development (however neatly executed) any more believable or interesting, nor does it reassure me it won't retread well-worn paths in science fiction.
There were some nice developments among the cast. Marco had a meaty, but delightfully different role as an avid fan of Peck's films. Suspiciously touted as a potential love-interest for Tom, Meghan Doyle became instantly more interesting when she took on the adversarial role of allowing Tom's arrest and made Diana defensive. Even her reaction to the theory of the Marked was suspiciously fearful, and that intrigues me.
There were also nice turns in the continuing story. I was happy to see my reservations from last week about Gabriel Hewitt simply serving a Hitlerian allegory corrected, when he seemed grateful toward Shawn healing his stroke and indicated a willingness to change. It seems there's an opportunity for Shawn's grace to show how a man potentially hell-bent on hatred and genocide may have his views changed. It's also a chance for this program to show how our opponents are not inherently evil -- how all people have decency in them and are not fated to do wrong if shown, and influenced to follow, a different path. Great! Also, there was some great drama between Jordan and Shawn that drew upon their history. There was also some nice political discussion. Jordan denigrated the nature of politics as compromise, and I loved how Shawn explained his distrust of those who sought power but were unwilling to specify their objectives. This was a great moment for Shawn in expressing a sentiment to which we can all relate, even if we don't always operationally hold ourselves and our leaders to those same standards. Even Isabelle and Shawn discussed their past, but I have one minor gripe about Isabelle's apology to Shawn and her admission of mistakes, including that they had not been in love. Still lacking a proper upbringing, how did she come to these realizations in solitary confinement without healthy social interaction? Is it that her highly-developed brain allowed her to recognize certain things about herself in prison? I'm just a little confused at how Isabelle arrived at these emotionally-rational conclusions (for regular people) when her powers had mostly prevented her from ever having to compromise and learn boundaries and social graces from the world.
I'm conflicted about the unfolding mythology because I appreciate the ideas, but worry about the detailed execution. It was an unexpected surprise to see Jordan Collier's description in Season 3's "Terrible Swift Sword" of the coming catastrophe being caused by present-day elites now coming into clearer detail. The Marked are an interesting metaphor for the accumulation of power and favoritism that has occurred throughout human history, and is very observable today; for example, the Bush family has a privileged life and personal and financial ties to the very figures in regimes like Saudi Arabia who helped create and fund the ideologies that fuel Al Qaeda-type groups. Yet this metaphor, if it is to have any political impact in how people think, must remain grounded in recognizably human behavior people see in the world today -- observable in the very news. Otherwise, it risks being the kind of extreme allegory science fiction often unsuccessfully makes without impacting the viewer. If the audience does not feel confronted by problems of discrimination in the real world as the stark contrasts portrayed in most fiction between good and evil, it is because discrimination is often unconscious, subtle, and involves popular participation. Such black and white fiction will not impel the audience to act upon the real problems of society to improve the world because they do not see the explicit circumstances in reality which moved them so emotionally in fiction.
Conspiracies are tricky plot devices to credibly appeal to the audience. They always risk being written-off as implausible due to caricature-like assumptions about human nature in implying pure evil on the part of the conspirators. One of the best things The X-Files did in the middle of its run, climaxing in the middle of Season 6, was to explain the alien conspiracy facing the syndicate as a "Sophie's Choice" dilemma. The syndicate was doing terrible things, but for a greater perceived good of delaying colonization by collaborating. One of the realistic things about the Cigarette-Smoking Man is his depiction not as pure evil, but as a man whose dehumanizing activities to protect and preserve the project actually ruined his life. In contrast, the Well-Manicured Man served as the conscience of the group -- always urging for restraint in their cruel methods -- by appealing to their self-interest to protect the project by not risking wider exposure; he was able to raise a loving family. Comparatively, CSM's more ardent duty toward the project led him to give up on his personal life, on looking after his family and loved ones, and on finding happiness. The project was his obsession, his reason for living (he was partly suicidal). There was something so tragic in how this man's pursuits made him cold and removed from life, and, ultimately, made him almost incapable of loving healthily; he treated those close to him with demanding obedience and was quick to cut them off, if they failed him. One could say he committed evil acts, but there was always a psychologically-sympathetic and -accurate motivation behind his actions.
The idea of The Marked being labeled seems a bit obvious, and reminded me of The X-Files' super soldiers in Seasons 8 and 9, though The 4400 has at least handled this with a subtle mark. The idea of the Bill Gates of The 4400 universe, Drew Imroth, as a conspirator is intriguing because I initially reacted to it as slander, but maybe that's why such conspirators are successful. I'd almost forgotten Gates himself has changed his image over the last decade from the ugly ambition behind one of the most successful companies. Microsoft was investigated by the federal government as a ruthless monopolist which would undersell the competition to drive it out of business or buy innovative technologies from smaller companies that might challenge Microsoft's dominance only to bury them. I suppose The Marked might have different attitudes and ambitions toward life than the rest of us because they're acting with an uncommon awareness of themselves in the scheme of things.
I worry about the pod-people/mind-control type plots which may emerge with Tom as it has with Curtis Peck, which can seem very b-movie in themselves. I'd wondered if Tom and Diana's conspicuous encounter with Imroth in the parking garage was a bit much; if he'd just shut up, they'd have had their doutbs, but his coded message just made them more dedicated, though I can understand his desire to scare them off. The writers should perhaps place some humanizing doubt among the Marked. Successful zealots usually aren't doubtful, but -- as Paul Greengrass showed in his film "United 93" about the 9/11 hijackers -- they may still have some doubt and regret even if it's not enough to stop them.
While Imroth calling The Marked heroic means they're at least not consciously "evil", more needs to be done to pull this off as believably as previous adversaries. Their perspective needs some degree of understandable credibility -- just as Ryland's and the government's actions were understandable for being prompted by fear of loss of security and order. Then again, ideologies supporting slavery and discrimination had their backers, and people find no moral justification for either of these anymore, though discrimination unconsciously still occurs. So, perhaps the Marked are just a hierarchical group justifying their own selfish power structure, but they would probably find a reasonable-sounding basis for this --perhaps a self-justifying view of history or notions of social superiority that validates their power, just as colonialism and second tier treatment of non-Europeans were still popular with celebrated heroes like Winston Churchill at war's end. Also, modern parallels could be the unconscious discrimination of a US government that condescends to the Middle East with homogenizing assumptions about its peoples and controlling interference to ensure its interests (observable in their disregard for Hamas' legitimacy in Palestine and manipulation of Iraqi policy, despite hollow rhetoric about wanting democracy above all else). Then again, most cultures do this to one another. The key, I think, is to make this discriminatory belief structure motivating The Marked somehow relatable and illuminating about human nature by making it subtle and perhaps unconscious.
For example, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were not outright racists, but they, especially the former, were operationally racist in pushing forth economic and social policy that disregarded certain minorities who were poor due to a legacy of explicit discrimination. When judging a politician's likely conduct, my older brother says it's not so much what (s)he believes in, but what lesser goals is (s)he most likely to first sacrifice in pursuit of higher priorities? Resources are always finite and tough choices are inevitably made. Clinton cared about liberal values and gay rights, but his positions changed when he prioritized winning the 1996 election. He avoided his longtime gay activist friend, and signed into law welfare reform and "three strikes and you're out" legislation that disproportionately discriminated against the poor. Similarly, it's not that the Bush administration's members consciously wish to violate civil liberties, directly or indirectly kill innocent Muslims/Arabs in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Iran, wants blacks to suffer in Katrina in addition to many other ways, enjoy torturing mostly innocent people in Abu Ghraib and secret prisons, or are purely interested in oil for America's future, and wealth for themselves and their companions in the elite. It's that their selfish prioritization is such that their willingness to disregard human misery of some groups is intermingled with pursuit of self-serving nationalist and (conveniently inconsistent) capitalist ideologies and psychological insecurities (especially with Bush) that they have unconsciously engaged in colonialism abroad and fascist approaches at home. Not all politicians have to be so self-serving. While Lyndon Johnson engaged in a terribly racist foreign policy, he was still heroic at home. He was prepared to sacrifice his presidency to help the most powerless in society through his Civil Rights initiatives and the War on Poverty.
In watching this struggle between future factions in The 4400, I'm reminded of a situation which developed in DS9 with a higher power struggle between the Prophets -- wormhole aliens living outside of time and worshipped as gods by Bajorans -- and the fallen angel-like Pah-wraiths who had more selfish pursuits. The latter's evil nature made them far less interesting because they were less complex among the traditional adversaries on the show: the Dominion, Cardassians, etc. Even Gul Dukat descended from a complex figure to one who became, in Seasons 6 and 7, either insane or so consumed with anger, nothing was left on his mind but vengeance; I've thought Dukat's end might have been more interesting if he'd sacrificed himself at the last minute for the Alpha Quadrant instead of just remaining mindlessly power-hungry. I see the same danger happening on The 4400. What's been great on this show is how the future people are far from all-knowing or even perfectly ethical. Yet I fear a caricature-like adversary in The Marked and their future accomplices, much like the Pah-wraiths, in never really finding out what motivates them emotionally and personally. What's it like for these beings trapped in the past? How do they stay motivated, if they are so far removed from the future benefits of their present day actions? Might some diverge from the course? What specifically is it they cherish from their future that they risked this mission to combat the plans of the future people who sent back The 4400? It can't just be some future dominance they'll never enjoy, or, if so, perhaps their motivations need to be defined ideologically as well as practically. I'm hoping the writers do this and make the Marked as complex as Jordan Collier and Dennis Ryland themselves.
Much depends on where this leads. Giving the writers much benefit of the doubt, I give this an 8/10, especially for the comedy.
I had a complicated reaction to "The Marked" because I saw the first 8 or so minutes before going to bed and watched the rest when I woke up the next day. Based on the first part, I went to sleep exhausted but excited to watch the rest of what I thought would be a comedic episode; Ira Steven Behr wrote and co-wrote some of the rare science fiction stories that were actually hilarious, so I thought he was overseeing that same kind of work on this show. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately because of the later twists in the story, I was only partly right. The episode quickly shifted from the wonderfully light-hearted tone set by Curtis Peck's funny low-budget b-movies (including the music!) and the resulting characters' humorous yet appropriate reactions to them to seriously acknowledging the growing likelihood of a heretofore ridiculously convoluted-sounding conspiracy. Perhaps that wasn't a bad thing, especially for the deservedly serious Shawn and Jordan/Kyle subplots. Yet, while the grave resolution of the b-movie plot did break new creative ground for this series, that very resolution, in some ways, just felt less compelling and original in science fiction (with its mind-control, implants, and threats from powerful conspirators) than might have been a continuously comedic approach. It's admirable how Craig Sweeny's story self-consciously admits, early on, that such conspiracies are almost cliche in their use in bad science fiction and caricature-like in their preposterousness -- perhaps as a way of pre-empting criticism for this new twist. Yet eventually having the agents won over from their skepticism to an X-Filesian paranoia due to overwhelming evidence hardly makes this development (however neatly executed) any more believable or interesting, nor does it reassure me it won't retread well-worn paths in science fiction.
There were some nice developments among the cast. Marco had a meaty, but delightfully different role as an avid fan of Peck's films. Suspiciously touted as a potential love-interest for Tom, Meghan Doyle became instantly more interesting when she took on the adversarial role of allowing Tom's arrest and made Diana defensive. Even her reaction to the theory of the Marked was suspiciously fearful, and that intrigues me.
There were also nice turns in the continuing story. I was happy to see my reservations from last week about Gabriel Hewitt simply serving a Hitlerian allegory corrected, when he seemed grateful toward Shawn healing his stroke and indicated a willingness to change. It seems there's an opportunity for Shawn's grace to show how a man potentially hell-bent on hatred and genocide may have his views changed. It's also a chance for this program to show how our opponents are not inherently evil -- how all people have decency in them and are not fated to do wrong if shown, and influenced to follow, a different path. Great! Also, there was some great drama between Jordan and Shawn that drew upon their history. There was also some nice political discussion. Jordan denigrated the nature of politics as compromise, and I loved how Shawn explained his distrust of those who sought power but were unwilling to specify their objectives. This was a great moment for Shawn in expressing a sentiment to which we can all relate, even if we don't always operationally hold ourselves and our leaders to those same standards. Even Isabelle and Shawn discussed their past, but I have one minor gripe about Isabelle's apology to Shawn and her admission of mistakes, including that they had not been in love. Still lacking a proper upbringing, how did she come to these realizations in solitary confinement without healthy social interaction? Is it that her highly-developed brain allowed her to recognize certain things about herself in prison? I'm just a little confused at how Isabelle arrived at these emotionally-rational conclusions (for regular people) when her powers had mostly prevented her from ever having to compromise and learn boundaries and social graces from the world.
I'm conflicted about the unfolding mythology because I appreciate the ideas, but worry about the detailed execution. It was an unexpected surprise to see Jordan Collier's description in Season 3's "Terrible Swift Sword" of the coming catastrophe being caused by present-day elites now coming into clearer detail. The Marked are an interesting metaphor for the accumulation of power and favoritism that has occurred throughout human history, and is very observable today; for example, the Bush family has a privileged life and personal and financial ties to the very figures in regimes like Saudi Arabia who helped create and fund the ideologies that fuel Al Qaeda-type groups. Yet this metaphor, if it is to have any political impact in how people think, must remain grounded in recognizably human behavior people see in the world today -- observable in the very news. Otherwise, it risks being the kind of extreme allegory science fiction often unsuccessfully makes without impacting the viewer. If the audience does not feel confronted by problems of discrimination in the real world as the stark contrasts portrayed in most fiction between good and evil, it is because discrimination is often unconscious, subtle, and involves popular participation. Such black and white fiction will not impel the audience to act upon the real problems of society to improve the world because they do not see the explicit circumstances in reality which moved them so emotionally in fiction.
Conspiracies are tricky plot devices to credibly appeal to the audience. They always risk being written-off as implausible due to caricature-like assumptions about human nature in implying pure evil on the part of the conspirators. One of the best things The X-Files did in the middle of its run, climaxing in the middle of Season 6, was to explain the alien conspiracy facing the syndicate as a "Sophie's Choice" dilemma. The syndicate was doing terrible things, but for a greater perceived good of delaying colonization by collaborating. One of the realistic things about the Cigarette-Smoking Man is his depiction not as pure evil, but as a man whose dehumanizing activities to protect and preserve the project actually ruined his life. In contrast, the Well-Manicured Man served as the conscience of the group -- always urging for restraint in their cruel methods -- by appealing to their self-interest to protect the project by not risking wider exposure; he was able to raise a loving family. Comparatively, CSM's more ardent duty toward the project led him to give up on his personal life, on looking after his family and loved ones, and on finding happiness. The project was his obsession, his reason for living (he was partly suicidal). There was something so tragic in how this man's pursuits made him cold and removed from life, and, ultimately, made him almost incapable of loving healthily; he treated those close to him with demanding obedience and was quick to cut them off, if they failed him. One could say he committed evil acts, but there was always a psychologically-sympathetic and -accurate motivation behind his actions.
The idea of The Marked being labeled seems a bit obvious, and reminded me of The X-Files' super soldiers in Seasons 8 and 9, though The 4400 has at least handled this with a subtle mark. The idea of the Bill Gates of The 4400 universe, Drew Imroth, as a conspirator is intriguing because I initially reacted to it as slander, but maybe that's why such conspirators are successful. I'd almost forgotten Gates himself has changed his image over the last decade from the ugly ambition behind one of the most successful companies. Microsoft was investigated by the federal government as a ruthless monopolist which would undersell the competition to drive it out of business or buy innovative technologies from smaller companies that might challenge Microsoft's dominance only to bury them. I suppose The Marked might have different attitudes and ambitions toward life than the rest of us because they're acting with an uncommon awareness of themselves in the scheme of things.
I worry about the pod-people/mind-control type plots which may emerge with Tom as it has with Curtis Peck, which can seem very b-movie in themselves. I'd wondered if Tom and Diana's conspicuous encounter with Imroth in the parking garage was a bit much; if he'd just shut up, they'd have had their doutbs, but his coded message just made them more dedicated, though I can understand his desire to scare them off. The writers should perhaps place some humanizing doubt among the Marked. Successful zealots usually aren't doubtful, but -- as Paul Greengrass showed in his film "United 93" about the 9/11 hijackers -- they may still have some doubt and regret even if it's not enough to stop them.
While Imroth calling The Marked heroic means they're at least not consciously "evil", more needs to be done to pull this off as believably as previous adversaries. Their perspective needs some degree of understandable credibility -- just as Ryland's and the government's actions were understandable for being prompted by fear of loss of security and order. Then again, ideologies supporting slavery and discrimination had their backers, and people find no moral justification for either of these anymore, though discrimination unconsciously still occurs. So, perhaps the Marked are just a hierarchical group justifying their own selfish power structure, but they would probably find a reasonable-sounding basis for this --perhaps a self-justifying view of history or notions of social superiority that validates their power, just as colonialism and second tier treatment of non-Europeans were still popular with celebrated heroes like Winston Churchill at war's end. Also, modern parallels could be the unconscious discrimination of a US government that condescends to the Middle East with homogenizing assumptions about its peoples and controlling interference to ensure its interests (observable in their disregard for Hamas' legitimacy in Palestine and manipulation of Iraqi policy, despite hollow rhetoric about wanting democracy above all else). Then again, most cultures do this to one another. The key, I think, is to make this discriminatory belief structure motivating The Marked somehow relatable and illuminating about human nature by making it subtle and perhaps unconscious.
For example, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were not outright racists, but they, especially the former, were operationally racist in pushing forth economic and social policy that disregarded certain minorities who were poor due to a legacy of explicit discrimination. When judging a politician's likely conduct, my older brother says it's not so much what (s)he believes in, but what lesser goals is (s)he most likely to first sacrifice in pursuit of higher priorities? Resources are always finite and tough choices are inevitably made. Clinton cared about liberal values and gay rights, but his positions changed when he prioritized winning the 1996 election. He avoided his longtime gay activist friend, and signed into law welfare reform and "three strikes and you're out" legislation that disproportionately discriminated against the poor. Similarly, it's not that the Bush administration's members consciously wish to violate civil liberties, directly or indirectly kill innocent Muslims/Arabs in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, and Iran, wants blacks to suffer in Katrina in addition to many other ways, enjoy torturing mostly innocent people in Abu Ghraib and secret prisons, or are purely interested in oil for America's future, and wealth for themselves and their companions in the elite. It's that their selfish prioritization is such that their willingness to disregard human misery of some groups is intermingled with pursuit of self-serving nationalist and (conveniently inconsistent) capitalist ideologies and psychological insecurities (especially with Bush) that they have unconsciously engaged in colonialism abroad and fascist approaches at home. Not all politicians have to be so self-serving. While Lyndon Johnson engaged in a terribly racist foreign policy, he was still heroic at home. He was prepared to sacrifice his presidency to help the most powerless in society through his Civil Rights initiatives and the War on Poverty.
In watching this struggle between future factions in The 4400, I'm reminded of a situation which developed in DS9 with a higher power struggle between the Prophets -- wormhole aliens living outside of time and worshipped as gods by Bajorans -- and the fallen angel-like Pah-wraiths who had more selfish pursuits. The latter's evil nature made them far less interesting because they were less complex among the traditional adversaries on the show: the Dominion, Cardassians, etc. Even Gul Dukat descended from a complex figure to one who became, in Seasons 6 and 7, either insane or so consumed with anger, nothing was left on his mind but vengeance; I've thought Dukat's end might have been more interesting if he'd sacrificed himself at the last minute for the Alpha Quadrant instead of just remaining mindlessly power-hungry. I see the same danger happening on The 4400. What's been great on this show is how the future people are far from all-knowing or even perfectly ethical. Yet I fear a caricature-like adversary in The Marked and their future accomplices, much like the Pah-wraiths, in never really finding out what motivates them emotionally and personally. What's it like for these beings trapped in the past? How do they stay motivated, if they are so far removed from the future benefits of their present day actions? Might some diverge from the course? What specifically is it they cherish from their future that they risked this mission to combat the plans of the future people who sent back The 4400? It can't just be some future dominance they'll never enjoy, or, if so, perhaps their motivations need to be defined ideologically as well as practically. I'm hoping the writers do this and make the Marked as complex as Jordan Collier and Dennis Ryland themselves.
Much depends on where this leads. Giving the writers much benefit of the doubt, I give this an 8/10, especially for the comedy.
Alias is the biggest load of superficial garbage I've ever seen. The most formulaic stories, lame action filler, and cheesy drama. Awful casting of Jennifer Garner, who's probably the worst highly paid actress in TV history. No wonder you don't appreciate the good aspects of this show. You actually LIKED Alias at some point.Dalton said:
Last edited:
Dalton
Blue Crack Addict
Muldfeld said:
Well I never wrote an 11 paragraph review about one of its episodes if that is what you are talking about.
:stopsgivingachancetoapoorlyactedweaklywrittenshow:
:awaitsanotherpseudointellectualpostbytheguywhodesperatelywantstoproveheistoosmartformainstreamtelevision:
Actually, my review criticized lots in the episode and I posted it on the official site as a way to communicate with the writers. I care a lot about the things I enjoy. That's all.Dalton said:
:willnotcareaboutfuturemean-spiritedpostsbyabiasedhypocriticalmisanthropewhoproveshisworthbybeingprovocativelyharshandundulynegative:
Last edited:
For anyone interested USA Network will air a marathon of Season 4 so far on Saturday August 4th. I think the best episodes are yet to come, but they've been slowly improving, despite some awkward standalone elements in especially the first 3 episodes. Still, lots of political insight into the human condition.
http://www.usanetwork.com/schedules/sched.php?sdate=8/4/2007&switch=2
http://www.usanetwork.com/schedules/sched.php?sdate=8/4/2007&switch=2
UberBeaver
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
I'm a couple of weeks behind. Just watched the one where April (she's getting worse as an actress...) can read minds and helps gets the corporate guy in jail. I like the show, but some of the acting and dialogue can be painful. It sometimes seems very forced.
Yeah, it's no BSG, but I think it's no more forced than Lost or especially Heroes. It's had a lot of trouble getting the best actors because of budgetary constraints. I'm pretty sure the network is asking them to do more standalones to bring in new viewers, but that's meant slowing the continuing story. The main cast is great, though. Also, the 6th episode had its problems, but it had some nice stuff, too and a hilarious first 10 or 15 minutes. Reminded me of Darin Morgan's work on The X-Files and Millennium.UberBeaver said:
Have you seen the last 3 episodes of Season 3? Those were amazing!
Last edited:
What I've been wating for...
My review of "'Til We Have Built Jerusalem"
As the New York Times critic Janet Maslin wrote upon the release of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn" (although The Motion Picture has always been my favorite Trek film), "Now this is more like it." (I've been waiting to write that!) Since the season premiere I've been awaiting the kind of quality of the final three episodes of Season 3 and the continuing arc of that season. I'd begun to lose hope, but my faith in the show has been restored as not only the plot, but the overall pacing and dialogue are up to those previously-set standards. This was a marked difference in writing quality from previous episodes because (other than avoiding the X-Filesian elements that detracted originality points for "The Marked") it focused solely on main characters, whose moments were only heightened by supporting characters like Meghan Doyle and Senator Lenhoff. Doyle's moments with Tom were much improved from previous episodes, especially the earlier standalones, in which their moments were occasionally awkward or rushed. I mistook glee for sleaziness in Kevin Tighe's Senator Lenhoff's last appearance; his acting is actually quite good. This season, Shawn has had the most consistently interesting elements of the continuing story. I enjoyed how he was portrayed as vulnerable enough to sleep with a patient's daughter, named Kara; surely, he violated some doctor/patient boundary, but he was human enough to not be perfectly disciplined, just as he had been in sleeping with Isabelle. It should be noted that Kara was played by not only a gorgeous woman but a refreshingly good standalone actor with decently-written dialogue. Shawn's confrontation with Kara over her manipulation and betrayal rang true with both her motivations and his hurt feelings being believable and sympathetic. The theme of prejudice toward Shawn was highlighted as the excuse, but this was discrimination based on jealousy of his and other 4400's power. As established in Danny's argument to Shawn in "Fear Itself" for wanting to take promicin, this jealousy hints at the growing frustration among the regular public at the increase in P-positives, and their fear of becoming second-class citizens.
In further exploring Kyle's fanaticism, this episode continues this season's theme about fundamentalism that can be found among segments of any faith or ideology who fail to account for the unpredictable complexity of humanity. The writers made a brilliant decision to infuse Jordan Collier's missionary zeal with an important degree of private doubt. Viewers first saw indication of his reservations in the season premiere through his discussion with Dr. Burkhoff of his dream of a promicin injectee-filled world turning into nightmare. We are reminded of it here again in his talk with Kyle about his apprehension over the irreversible step they were about to take in their revolution. Moments like this humanize him and are surely what happens among leaders of any ambitious movement, even if they never publicly give them voice. Yet, perhaps like the anarchist, a century ago, who shot US President McKinley, Marxist-Leninists who'd excuse any brutal means to secure Soviet Communism, and -- more recently -- neoconservatives of the Bush administration who projected simplistic plans for the Middle East with a prescience that defied understanding of the region's history and human nature, Kyle's conviction dissuades any uncertainty. His confidence in his prophetic book and Cassie is perhaps even better illustrated when its basis in logic is challenged in well-written exchanges with Isabelle and especially his father. A refreshingly realistic bit of texture was Tom's shift in approach in trying to reach his son. The troubled and frantic manner he usually adopts with Kyle would have only shut him down. So, Tom opts for the more practical approach of repressing his emotional tendencies, and speaks with a cautious yet calm tone. Despite the real world parallels in the portrayal of Kyle's growing faith this season, the unique aspect about it is that his devotion is not purely based upon faith in some imagined higher power. Established religions -- like Christianity, Judaism and Islam – may reference a miracle-ridden mythology and depend on cultural traditions, but they offer no actual evidence of God or a higher purpose. In contrast, Kyle's commitment has been earned by some healthy degree of evidence supplied by Cassie. Despite his trust in Cassie's intentions and the purportedly prophetic nature of the book, his faith is not completely blind. He is acting with the knowledge that the 4400 have fantastical abilities and are from the future to save mankind, and that his power, Cassie, has proven her ability to predict the future. Jordan Collier actually was resurrected. Even Diana intelligently hints at this distinction between Kyle's beliefs and those of other religions by mentioning that Maia can see the future and that perhaps Kyle's faith is not misplaced.
Seeing Maia's character mature was a welcome change. Her ominous visions (and perhaps age) caused her to not only relay her visions to Diana to act upon them, but to actually take the initiative to enter Collier's compound alone. It was a shock seeing her share a personal, though slightly quick, moment with Isabelle. I enjoyed how Maia responded to Isabelle's apology with a reiteration of the lesson she learned from her mother's treatment of April in Season 2 that "saying 'sorry' sometimes isn't enough." It might seem a strangely adult response coming from her otherwise, but the audience's knowledge that this attitude was learned from her mother made it quite believable. I appreciated the twist of her lying about a vision because why wouldn't someone who people believe all the time be tempted to exploit that?
I applaud the writer's nod to the theme of environmental problems without dwelling on it in a cheesy way. The environmentalist streak in Jordan's Promise City (awkward name?) makes his vision seem benevolent because it connects with the viewers by making us appreciate the indispensability of what his group brings to humanity. I wondered if the way the P-positive woman purified polluted water seemed a bit silly. Then again, there's no reason she should look so dramatically energized and have a clichéd self-serious pose and facial expression. However, and I'm probably nit-picking, the line "Come on in; the water's fine" served as evidence, yet again, that standalone characters often upset the flow of storytelling, as they did in "Try the Pie."
In any case, Jordan's political movement demonstrates a sensitivity toward the social and environmental threats facing humanity in a way the government does not. His actions in the interest of the greater good stand in stark contrast to the government's small-minded, excuse for intervening with Promise City by claiming violation of property rights; this would symbolize a historical kind of overzealous capitalist-driven prioritization of individual interests over those of the community. Yet the real reason behind the government's behavior, as stated by Ira Behr and Craig Sweeny in the season premiere's commentary, is to preserve the order and control which Jordan Collier's movement and the 4400 threaten. It also understandably seeks to protect itself and its voting public from the uncertain threat they may pose to humanity -- with promicin's high lethality and the dangerous powers wielded by survivors. In this way, government is treated fairly and realistically, and not as an evil caricature; the soldier had enough honor to honestly refuse Jordan's offer of membership without pretending to go along only to try to escape. Yet there is an undeniably dangerous quality which the state possesses, and I'm glad this program hints at this with a healthy skepticism sometimes not found in The X-Files.
In witnessing the government's attempts to harness promicin for its own uses through Defense Department contractor Haskel Corp. in Season 3 (perhaps inspired by Haliburton), and now on its own, we see the hypocrisy of outlawing the use of 4400 abilities earlier this season. (Here's where I get on my soapbox for the next few paragraphs to discuss how issues related to terrorism in the show help us understand history and present day policies.) In a similar way, governments are wary of allowing non-state actors to employ the same means they use to achieve their objectives. One example is the use of force. When states use force, it can be organized and planned to have overwhelming impact through war. States can more easily afford high casualties on their side, and conveniently label innocent victims from the other side as accidental "collateral damage." When smaller, weaker groups use force, they must adopt asymmetrical means to win -- often disparagingly referred to as terrorism. It is without doubt that because terrorism doesn't require democratic consent, it can also be waged with very few members who may not have good reason or democratic interests and consent at heart. It also means they are more likely to target civilians if they are the root of state power in a democratic society. Still, history is full of terrorist cases, in which resistance of this sort was understandable if not completely ethical. During the Cold War, many Latin American movements fighting for disfranchised Indios were mislabeled agents of Soviet Communism by America's allied ruling class, who obtained US aid and used the military to clamp down on popular will. The French Resistance employed terrorism to fight Vichy France. The American Revolutionary Army employed terrorist tactics in the South under General Nathaniel Greene. Contemporary etiquette of warfare meant troops had to arrive in full formation and announce their presence (band playing and all) before agreeing to fight in ordered fashion. British Generals were appalled at the weaker Americans' guerrilla style fighting intended to take the Britons by surprise by engaging in hit-and-run attacks, disguising themselves among civilians, and shooting from hiding places such as tree tops. American soldiers even spread deceitful propaganda to undecided towns about British-allied natives raping white women. American Revolutionaries violated civilized conduct because they felt it was the only way to win.
Maia's statement that Jordan was one of the good guys again shows how terrorism doesn't make someone automatically evil. This is contrary to the simplistic and hypocritical position adopted by many Western leaders like Tony Blair who arbitrarily call their opponents' actions deplorable but find no objection in similar tactics waged by themselves or their allies. Just this week, the US government has agreed to supply billions of dollars' worth of arms to Israel, and repressive regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. These states' policies only helped create or inspire the Al Qaeda-type groups threatening civilization, and they continue to inflame the situation with actions that increase their membership. Democrats have rightly opposed this aid by pointing to the origins of Al Qaeda members in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. With decades-long American financial and military support, such Arab states have only led to this violently disturbing reaction, which rightly seeks to overthrow despotic systems that have failed their people, but wrongly seeks a solution through an ugly, colonial form of Muslim nationalism that is even more despotic. Where Democrats have historically been wrong is their unwavering support for Israel, based on domestic politics and familiar cultural ground. They have turned a blind eye to Israel's use of terrorism and ethnic cleansing to free its territory of Palestinians, beginning in the 1940s. Democrats and increasing numbers of Republicans have permitted Israel's continued occupation through US-funded and -supplied state violence and intimidation to do what they will without consulting Palestinians before unilaterally deciding how they live. For decades, Israel's actions have flown in the face of UN resolutions denouncing its continuing settlements beyond sanctioned borders. I recently watched a French documentary by an Arab Jew called "The Wall." It showed how Israel unilaterally decided to build a wall to protect its citizens by crossing the green line up to 6 km into Palestinian territory. This has caused many Palestinian farmers to lose their land, and forced many to take overly circuitous routes to get to their jobs in Israel. Indeed, much of the wall is being built cheaply on Palestinian labor, perhaps as the proposed US-Mexican wall will be built with Mexican labor. I saw a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) report last year about a wealthy Jewish couple who sold their home in Toronto, Canada to move to a settlement newly established on the Palestinian land newly confiscated by the wall's construction. They gave no thought to compensating the Palestinians who've lost their land, so the Israeli state can back their colonialist behavior. Actions like these have occurred for decades, as Palestinians live in squalor.
While terrorist groups like Hamas don't threaten the world the way Islamic fundamentalist groups do, Muslims sympathetic to the Palestinian plight misdirect their outrage by either tolerating or joining Al Qaeda-type groups. This aid package would only strengthen Israel's hand in making it less likely to make peace or even negotiate on terms fair to the Palestinians, including acceptance of Hamas' democratic mandate. It would also strengthen so-called moderate Arab states' hold on power, even though they fund Islamic fundamentalist teachings as a compromise with their restless populace. The Saudi embassy gives out a Qur'an containing exegesis (interpretations of the text) with atypical racist remarks about Jews. It's important to challenge Iran's Ahmadinjad's childish hate-mongering, but the US should keep a better check on its allies' more effective and widespread racism. In this way, America's aid to the Israeli occupation, its military presence in the Middle East, and its support for despotic (so-called "moderate") Arab regimes all fuel the growing Islamic fundamentalist terrorist movement.
As this program shows, terrorism often results from discrimination or oppression (often real, occasionally imagined), and, while it can take on irrational and violent traits, it can also be used for good. Jordan Collier's offer of sanctuary to the persecuted 4400 is quite stirring because its heroically protective quality resonates with the audience's sympathy for the plight of discriminated groups throughout history who would have welcomed such an opportunity to freely be themselves. His movement also appeals to a desire for social justice with its elements of brotherly love and his standing up for the down-trodden (seen in how he respected the homeless at the end of last season).
I only recently realized the brilliance of the writers' move last season in allowing anyone to become a 4400. In doing this, both they and Jordan Collier turned a mission to be carried out by a select few – vulnerable to discrimination from the fearful majority – into a popular and more democratic revolution by allowing anyone to become a 4400. This had the added effect of making the 4400s' mission to save humanity increasingly resistant to grassroots and state opposition as membership grows, and, therefore, more stable and likely to succeed. The parallel in religious terms is spreading the faith by accepting new members among a previously-confined chosen people.
Yet, there's an exclusionist streak in this movement which won't accept non-4400s, unless they risk the injections to join their ranks; the parallel in religious terms is conversion to the faith to be accepted. By shifting the power balance, as Danny Farrell mentioned in "Fear Itself," isn't the creation of a two-class world an injustice in almost forcing regular humans to take promicin and risk dying? Even if there was no risk, forfeiting their normalcy is quite a price. In addition, some of Collier's terrorist tactics are a bit unsettling, even if understandable and even-tempered. The fact that he has the ability to choose who among the Extra Crispies retains their powers recalls Shawn's mistrust of the potential for Jordan's own accumulation and abuse of power; this would have anti-democratic implications for his revolution. I was relieved he did not kill the government's strike team, since the setting reminded me of the kind in which Westerners are tragically beheaded in Iraq. Yet, he was prepared to mount a counter-attack, which could have killed many innocents. While such targets have the power to control their government's policies with their vote, and would bear some responsibility for the attack, it would still be sad. Even though Jordan's ultimate solution was more passive, there was something chilling about how Promise City unstoppably expanded its borders. History has shown that the line between a justified, protective defense and an aggressive offense that leads to injustice toward the other party is sometimes indistinguishable. In this fashion, the writers continue to refuse fictional absolutes, in demonstrating that "good" doesn't mean morally perfect (and "bad" doesn't mean inherently evil), by having Jordan prepared to react with violence and willing to expand his zone with force. As a result, they depict a more complex and realistic notion of human nature one doesn't find in most TV shows and I'm thrilled to find in this one. It wasn't just the main plot that was very good, but there were little touches and character moments that didn't feel too self-conscious, and were executed more skillfully than they have much of this season. For example, the dinner scene between Tom and Diana was very well done, especially the non-cliché observation by Tom as to the reasons women invite men over: attraction or pity. I also liked how Garrity pointed to Doyle's professional flaws, as he did in the premiere. Regarding the appearance of the show, the special effects for invisible soldier were very well done. The fight scene between Tom and the soldier looked great. It wasn't overly choreographed or tediously long (as on Angel or Buffy) but believably tough, too. I like that Tom knew where the cloaked soldier was hiding but that it didn't make a difference because he didn't react fast enough, and he still was beaten. The soldiers in this episode gave a much better military performance than was given in Season 2's "Lockdown." There was a regular, "uncool" look to many of the extras, especially the woman standing next to Jordan at the end, who cut NTAC's camera connection. Initially, their appearance was off-putting. Yet maybe it was a good choice, considering these might be the kinds of ordinary people who wouldn't look self-consciously dramatic, if this were to happen in the real world, and you were watching them on CNN.
However, not every detail was well-executed, as minor faults continue to detract from the show's look and sound in post-production. They have to get rid of the slow motion technique used in the teaser when Collier addresses his followers, and used throughout the series. Perhaps, it's how they use it to draw out a moment; it always looks cheap – as if there are too few frames per second and this was a last-minute decision made in post-production to give the scene some gravity the director felt lacking. Even when composed music is as forced and formulaic as that of "Lost," it definitely heightens mood. For the best effect, I'm a huge fan of Mark Snow's score for Seasons 3 through 6 of The X-Files and the melodic work by Bear McCreary in the new Battlestar Galactica. I appreciate this show's shift in respect toward letting dramatic moments stand on their own merits by not clubbing the audience over the head with the scene's meaning through cheesy Top 40 music and lyrics. However, there were still problems with the much-preferred score. The triumphant music for the teaser's rousing speech scene and Maia's alert of impending doom could have been better; it could have had a less artificial-sounding, clunky synthesizer; perhaps it needed more layering, more dynamism through loud and soft, or some well-synthesized strings. I'm still having a problem with the throbbing bass synth sound used to create suspense, when it just feels a bit boring to me. The sound of the synth toward the act break before the theme song sounded better. I have heard better music from John Van Tongeren and Claude Foisy and the music during the end montage (and the choice of that scene only having music and no other sound was a good one) was much better. Also, there was a cool sound effect when Shawn and Maia were watching Jordan on TV, which didn't sound like some rip-off (which many shows do) of Mark Snow's sting or that of any other show or movie.
While Robert Hewitt Wolfe has been serving as Creative Consultant since "Try the Pie," this episode features his return as a writer. He wrote the Season 1 episode "Trial by Fire," but is much more impressive to me for his excellent work alongside – and, often, co-writing with – head writer Ira Steven Behr on the unique and equally political Star Trek Deep Space Nine, which Mr. Behr headed in the last 5 of its seven year run. Based on his lovingly-expressed thoughts on the DS9 DVD sets, Mr. Wolfe shows a keen interest in history and politics. After working on non-political shows, it's nice to see his passion and adeptness for political insight into the human condition working so well to bring out what this show does best. I hope he stays on.
8.4 out of 10
(I should emphasize the only the rarest of shows get 10 -- only the absolute best episodes of The X-Files ("Talitha Cumi", "Paper Hearts", "Redux II", etc.), Battlestar Galactica ("Pegasus","Lay Down Your Burdens", "Occupation"/"Precipice") and Deep Space Nine ("In the Pale Moonlight"). I would give the best story of The 4400 to date, "Terrible Swift Sword"/"Fifty Fifty," around 9.0, and I really loved that.)
My review of "'Til We Have Built Jerusalem"
As the New York Times critic Janet Maslin wrote upon the release of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn" (although The Motion Picture has always been my favorite Trek film), "Now this is more like it." (I've been waiting to write that!) Since the season premiere I've been awaiting the kind of quality of the final three episodes of Season 3 and the continuing arc of that season. I'd begun to lose hope, but my faith in the show has been restored as not only the plot, but the overall pacing and dialogue are up to those previously-set standards. This was a marked difference in writing quality from previous episodes because (other than avoiding the X-Filesian elements that detracted originality points for "The Marked") it focused solely on main characters, whose moments were only heightened by supporting characters like Meghan Doyle and Senator Lenhoff. Doyle's moments with Tom were much improved from previous episodes, especially the earlier standalones, in which their moments were occasionally awkward or rushed. I mistook glee for sleaziness in Kevin Tighe's Senator Lenhoff's last appearance; his acting is actually quite good. This season, Shawn has had the most consistently interesting elements of the continuing story. I enjoyed how he was portrayed as vulnerable enough to sleep with a patient's daughter, named Kara; surely, he violated some doctor/patient boundary, but he was human enough to not be perfectly disciplined, just as he had been in sleeping with Isabelle. It should be noted that Kara was played by not only a gorgeous woman but a refreshingly good standalone actor with decently-written dialogue. Shawn's confrontation with Kara over her manipulation and betrayal rang true with both her motivations and his hurt feelings being believable and sympathetic. The theme of prejudice toward Shawn was highlighted as the excuse, but this was discrimination based on jealousy of his and other 4400's power. As established in Danny's argument to Shawn in "Fear Itself" for wanting to take promicin, this jealousy hints at the growing frustration among the regular public at the increase in P-positives, and their fear of becoming second-class citizens.
In further exploring Kyle's fanaticism, this episode continues this season's theme about fundamentalism that can be found among segments of any faith or ideology who fail to account for the unpredictable complexity of humanity. The writers made a brilliant decision to infuse Jordan Collier's missionary zeal with an important degree of private doubt. Viewers first saw indication of his reservations in the season premiere through his discussion with Dr. Burkhoff of his dream of a promicin injectee-filled world turning into nightmare. We are reminded of it here again in his talk with Kyle about his apprehension over the irreversible step they were about to take in their revolution. Moments like this humanize him and are surely what happens among leaders of any ambitious movement, even if they never publicly give them voice. Yet, perhaps like the anarchist, a century ago, who shot US President McKinley, Marxist-Leninists who'd excuse any brutal means to secure Soviet Communism, and -- more recently -- neoconservatives of the Bush administration who projected simplistic plans for the Middle East with a prescience that defied understanding of the region's history and human nature, Kyle's conviction dissuades any uncertainty. His confidence in his prophetic book and Cassie is perhaps even better illustrated when its basis in logic is challenged in well-written exchanges with Isabelle and especially his father. A refreshingly realistic bit of texture was Tom's shift in approach in trying to reach his son. The troubled and frantic manner he usually adopts with Kyle would have only shut him down. So, Tom opts for the more practical approach of repressing his emotional tendencies, and speaks with a cautious yet calm tone. Despite the real world parallels in the portrayal of Kyle's growing faith this season, the unique aspect about it is that his devotion is not purely based upon faith in some imagined higher power. Established religions -- like Christianity, Judaism and Islam – may reference a miracle-ridden mythology and depend on cultural traditions, but they offer no actual evidence of God or a higher purpose. In contrast, Kyle's commitment has been earned by some healthy degree of evidence supplied by Cassie. Despite his trust in Cassie's intentions and the purportedly prophetic nature of the book, his faith is not completely blind. He is acting with the knowledge that the 4400 have fantastical abilities and are from the future to save mankind, and that his power, Cassie, has proven her ability to predict the future. Jordan Collier actually was resurrected. Even Diana intelligently hints at this distinction between Kyle's beliefs and those of other religions by mentioning that Maia can see the future and that perhaps Kyle's faith is not misplaced.
Seeing Maia's character mature was a welcome change. Her ominous visions (and perhaps age) caused her to not only relay her visions to Diana to act upon them, but to actually take the initiative to enter Collier's compound alone. It was a shock seeing her share a personal, though slightly quick, moment with Isabelle. I enjoyed how Maia responded to Isabelle's apology with a reiteration of the lesson she learned from her mother's treatment of April in Season 2 that "saying 'sorry' sometimes isn't enough." It might seem a strangely adult response coming from her otherwise, but the audience's knowledge that this attitude was learned from her mother made it quite believable. I appreciated the twist of her lying about a vision because why wouldn't someone who people believe all the time be tempted to exploit that?
I applaud the writer's nod to the theme of environmental problems without dwelling on it in a cheesy way. The environmentalist streak in Jordan's Promise City (awkward name?) makes his vision seem benevolent because it connects with the viewers by making us appreciate the indispensability of what his group brings to humanity. I wondered if the way the P-positive woman purified polluted water seemed a bit silly. Then again, there's no reason she should look so dramatically energized and have a clichéd self-serious pose and facial expression. However, and I'm probably nit-picking, the line "Come on in; the water's fine" served as evidence, yet again, that standalone characters often upset the flow of storytelling, as they did in "Try the Pie."
In any case, Jordan's political movement demonstrates a sensitivity toward the social and environmental threats facing humanity in a way the government does not. His actions in the interest of the greater good stand in stark contrast to the government's small-minded, excuse for intervening with Promise City by claiming violation of property rights; this would symbolize a historical kind of overzealous capitalist-driven prioritization of individual interests over those of the community. Yet the real reason behind the government's behavior, as stated by Ira Behr and Craig Sweeny in the season premiere's commentary, is to preserve the order and control which Jordan Collier's movement and the 4400 threaten. It also understandably seeks to protect itself and its voting public from the uncertain threat they may pose to humanity -- with promicin's high lethality and the dangerous powers wielded by survivors. In this way, government is treated fairly and realistically, and not as an evil caricature; the soldier had enough honor to honestly refuse Jordan's offer of membership without pretending to go along only to try to escape. Yet there is an undeniably dangerous quality which the state possesses, and I'm glad this program hints at this with a healthy skepticism sometimes not found in The X-Files.
In witnessing the government's attempts to harness promicin for its own uses through Defense Department contractor Haskel Corp. in Season 3 (perhaps inspired by Haliburton), and now on its own, we see the hypocrisy of outlawing the use of 4400 abilities earlier this season. (Here's where I get on my soapbox for the next few paragraphs to discuss how issues related to terrorism in the show help us understand history and present day policies.) In a similar way, governments are wary of allowing non-state actors to employ the same means they use to achieve their objectives. One example is the use of force. When states use force, it can be organized and planned to have overwhelming impact through war. States can more easily afford high casualties on their side, and conveniently label innocent victims from the other side as accidental "collateral damage." When smaller, weaker groups use force, they must adopt asymmetrical means to win -- often disparagingly referred to as terrorism. It is without doubt that because terrorism doesn't require democratic consent, it can also be waged with very few members who may not have good reason or democratic interests and consent at heart. It also means they are more likely to target civilians if they are the root of state power in a democratic society. Still, history is full of terrorist cases, in which resistance of this sort was understandable if not completely ethical. During the Cold War, many Latin American movements fighting for disfranchised Indios were mislabeled agents of Soviet Communism by America's allied ruling class, who obtained US aid and used the military to clamp down on popular will. The French Resistance employed terrorism to fight Vichy France. The American Revolutionary Army employed terrorist tactics in the South under General Nathaniel Greene. Contemporary etiquette of warfare meant troops had to arrive in full formation and announce their presence (band playing and all) before agreeing to fight in ordered fashion. British Generals were appalled at the weaker Americans' guerrilla style fighting intended to take the Britons by surprise by engaging in hit-and-run attacks, disguising themselves among civilians, and shooting from hiding places such as tree tops. American soldiers even spread deceitful propaganda to undecided towns about British-allied natives raping white women. American Revolutionaries violated civilized conduct because they felt it was the only way to win.
Maia's statement that Jordan was one of the good guys again shows how terrorism doesn't make someone automatically evil. This is contrary to the simplistic and hypocritical position adopted by many Western leaders like Tony Blair who arbitrarily call their opponents' actions deplorable but find no objection in similar tactics waged by themselves or their allies. Just this week, the US government has agreed to supply billions of dollars' worth of arms to Israel, and repressive regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. These states' policies only helped create or inspire the Al Qaeda-type groups threatening civilization, and they continue to inflame the situation with actions that increase their membership. Democrats have rightly opposed this aid by pointing to the origins of Al Qaeda members in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. With decades-long American financial and military support, such Arab states have only led to this violently disturbing reaction, which rightly seeks to overthrow despotic systems that have failed their people, but wrongly seeks a solution through an ugly, colonial form of Muslim nationalism that is even more despotic. Where Democrats have historically been wrong is their unwavering support for Israel, based on domestic politics and familiar cultural ground. They have turned a blind eye to Israel's use of terrorism and ethnic cleansing to free its territory of Palestinians, beginning in the 1940s. Democrats and increasing numbers of Republicans have permitted Israel's continued occupation through US-funded and -supplied state violence and intimidation to do what they will without consulting Palestinians before unilaterally deciding how they live. For decades, Israel's actions have flown in the face of UN resolutions denouncing its continuing settlements beyond sanctioned borders. I recently watched a French documentary by an Arab Jew called "The Wall." It showed how Israel unilaterally decided to build a wall to protect its citizens by crossing the green line up to 6 km into Palestinian territory. This has caused many Palestinian farmers to lose their land, and forced many to take overly circuitous routes to get to their jobs in Israel. Indeed, much of the wall is being built cheaply on Palestinian labor, perhaps as the proposed US-Mexican wall will be built with Mexican labor. I saw a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) report last year about a wealthy Jewish couple who sold their home in Toronto, Canada to move to a settlement newly established on the Palestinian land newly confiscated by the wall's construction. They gave no thought to compensating the Palestinians who've lost their land, so the Israeli state can back their colonialist behavior. Actions like these have occurred for decades, as Palestinians live in squalor.
While terrorist groups like Hamas don't threaten the world the way Islamic fundamentalist groups do, Muslims sympathetic to the Palestinian plight misdirect their outrage by either tolerating or joining Al Qaeda-type groups. This aid package would only strengthen Israel's hand in making it less likely to make peace or even negotiate on terms fair to the Palestinians, including acceptance of Hamas' democratic mandate. It would also strengthen so-called moderate Arab states' hold on power, even though they fund Islamic fundamentalist teachings as a compromise with their restless populace. The Saudi embassy gives out a Qur'an containing exegesis (interpretations of the text) with atypical racist remarks about Jews. It's important to challenge Iran's Ahmadinjad's childish hate-mongering, but the US should keep a better check on its allies' more effective and widespread racism. In this way, America's aid to the Israeli occupation, its military presence in the Middle East, and its support for despotic (so-called "moderate") Arab regimes all fuel the growing Islamic fundamentalist terrorist movement.
As this program shows, terrorism often results from discrimination or oppression (often real, occasionally imagined), and, while it can take on irrational and violent traits, it can also be used for good. Jordan Collier's offer of sanctuary to the persecuted 4400 is quite stirring because its heroically protective quality resonates with the audience's sympathy for the plight of discriminated groups throughout history who would have welcomed such an opportunity to freely be themselves. His movement also appeals to a desire for social justice with its elements of brotherly love and his standing up for the down-trodden (seen in how he respected the homeless at the end of last season).
I only recently realized the brilliance of the writers' move last season in allowing anyone to become a 4400. In doing this, both they and Jordan Collier turned a mission to be carried out by a select few – vulnerable to discrimination from the fearful majority – into a popular and more democratic revolution by allowing anyone to become a 4400. This had the added effect of making the 4400s' mission to save humanity increasingly resistant to grassroots and state opposition as membership grows, and, therefore, more stable and likely to succeed. The parallel in religious terms is spreading the faith by accepting new members among a previously-confined chosen people.
Yet, there's an exclusionist streak in this movement which won't accept non-4400s, unless they risk the injections to join their ranks; the parallel in religious terms is conversion to the faith to be accepted. By shifting the power balance, as Danny Farrell mentioned in "Fear Itself," isn't the creation of a two-class world an injustice in almost forcing regular humans to take promicin and risk dying? Even if there was no risk, forfeiting their normalcy is quite a price. In addition, some of Collier's terrorist tactics are a bit unsettling, even if understandable and even-tempered. The fact that he has the ability to choose who among the Extra Crispies retains their powers recalls Shawn's mistrust of the potential for Jordan's own accumulation and abuse of power; this would have anti-democratic implications for his revolution. I was relieved he did not kill the government's strike team, since the setting reminded me of the kind in which Westerners are tragically beheaded in Iraq. Yet, he was prepared to mount a counter-attack, which could have killed many innocents. While such targets have the power to control their government's policies with their vote, and would bear some responsibility for the attack, it would still be sad. Even though Jordan's ultimate solution was more passive, there was something chilling about how Promise City unstoppably expanded its borders. History has shown that the line between a justified, protective defense and an aggressive offense that leads to injustice toward the other party is sometimes indistinguishable. In this fashion, the writers continue to refuse fictional absolutes, in demonstrating that "good" doesn't mean morally perfect (and "bad" doesn't mean inherently evil), by having Jordan prepared to react with violence and willing to expand his zone with force. As a result, they depict a more complex and realistic notion of human nature one doesn't find in most TV shows and I'm thrilled to find in this one. It wasn't just the main plot that was very good, but there were little touches and character moments that didn't feel too self-conscious, and were executed more skillfully than they have much of this season. For example, the dinner scene between Tom and Diana was very well done, especially the non-cliché observation by Tom as to the reasons women invite men over: attraction or pity. I also liked how Garrity pointed to Doyle's professional flaws, as he did in the premiere. Regarding the appearance of the show, the special effects for invisible soldier were very well done. The fight scene between Tom and the soldier looked great. It wasn't overly choreographed or tediously long (as on Angel or Buffy) but believably tough, too. I like that Tom knew where the cloaked soldier was hiding but that it didn't make a difference because he didn't react fast enough, and he still was beaten. The soldiers in this episode gave a much better military performance than was given in Season 2's "Lockdown." There was a regular, "uncool" look to many of the extras, especially the woman standing next to Jordan at the end, who cut NTAC's camera connection. Initially, their appearance was off-putting. Yet maybe it was a good choice, considering these might be the kinds of ordinary people who wouldn't look self-consciously dramatic, if this were to happen in the real world, and you were watching them on CNN.
However, not every detail was well-executed, as minor faults continue to detract from the show's look and sound in post-production. They have to get rid of the slow motion technique used in the teaser when Collier addresses his followers, and used throughout the series. Perhaps, it's how they use it to draw out a moment; it always looks cheap – as if there are too few frames per second and this was a last-minute decision made in post-production to give the scene some gravity the director felt lacking. Even when composed music is as forced and formulaic as that of "Lost," it definitely heightens mood. For the best effect, I'm a huge fan of Mark Snow's score for Seasons 3 through 6 of The X-Files and the melodic work by Bear McCreary in the new Battlestar Galactica. I appreciate this show's shift in respect toward letting dramatic moments stand on their own merits by not clubbing the audience over the head with the scene's meaning through cheesy Top 40 music and lyrics. However, there were still problems with the much-preferred score. The triumphant music for the teaser's rousing speech scene and Maia's alert of impending doom could have been better; it could have had a less artificial-sounding, clunky synthesizer; perhaps it needed more layering, more dynamism through loud and soft, or some well-synthesized strings. I'm still having a problem with the throbbing bass synth sound used to create suspense, when it just feels a bit boring to me. The sound of the synth toward the act break before the theme song sounded better. I have heard better music from John Van Tongeren and Claude Foisy and the music during the end montage (and the choice of that scene only having music and no other sound was a good one) was much better. Also, there was a cool sound effect when Shawn and Maia were watching Jordan on TV, which didn't sound like some rip-off (which many shows do) of Mark Snow's sting or that of any other show or movie.
While Robert Hewitt Wolfe has been serving as Creative Consultant since "Try the Pie," this episode features his return as a writer. He wrote the Season 1 episode "Trial by Fire," but is much more impressive to me for his excellent work alongside – and, often, co-writing with – head writer Ira Steven Behr on the unique and equally political Star Trek Deep Space Nine, which Mr. Behr headed in the last 5 of its seven year run. Based on his lovingly-expressed thoughts on the DS9 DVD sets, Mr. Wolfe shows a keen interest in history and politics. After working on non-political shows, it's nice to see his passion and adeptness for political insight into the human condition working so well to bring out what this show does best. I hope he stays on.
8.4 out of 10
(I should emphasize the only the rarest of shows get 10 -- only the absolute best episodes of The X-Files ("Talitha Cumi", "Paper Hearts", "Redux II", etc.), Battlestar Galactica ("Pegasus","Lay Down Your Burdens", "Occupation"/"Precipice") and Deep Space Nine ("In the Pale Moonlight"). I would give the best story of The 4400 to date, "Terrible Swift Sword"/"Fifty Fifty," around 9.0, and I really loved that.)
Last edited:
Here's a link to the 7th and up to now best episode of the season, "Til We Have Built Jerusalem" in streaming video; it might not be up for too long:
http://stage6.divx.com/user/roni_smiles/video/1477355/4400-04x07
http://stage6.divx.com/user/roni_smiles/video/1477355/4400-04x07
I thought I'd repost my review with subject headings so it's not so frightening-looking and people won't just think I'm summarizing the story, but realize I'm talking about the show's exploration of human nature and politics in a challenging way.
My review of "'Til We Have Built Jerusalem"
Rough summary about why it was so good, including the supporting performances.
As the New York Times critic Janet Maslin wrote upon the release of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn" (although The Motion Picture has always been my favorite Trek film), "Now this is more like it." (I've been waiting to write that!) Since the season premiere I've been awaiting the kind of quality of the final three episodes of Season 3 and the continuing arc of that season. I'd begun to lose hope, but my faith in the show has been restored as not only the plot, but the overall pacing and dialogue are up to those previously-set standards. This was a marked difference in writing quality from previous episodes because (other than avoiding the X-Filesian elements that detracted originality points for "The Marked") it focused solely on main characters, whose moments were only heightened by supporting characters like Meghan Doyle and Senator Lenhoff. Doyle's moments with Tom were much improved from previous episodes, especially the earlier standalones, in which their moments were occasionally awkward or rushed. I mistook glee for sleaziness in Kevin Tighe's Senator Lenhoff's last appearance; his acting is actually quite good.
Shawn's subplot and what I loved about it.
This season, Shawn has had the most consistently interesting elements of the continuing story. I enjoyed how he was portrayed as vulnerable enough to sleep with a patient's daughter, named Kara; surely, he violated some doctor/patient boundary, but he was human enough to not be perfectly disciplined, just as he had been in sleeping with Isabelle. It should be noted that Kara was played by not only a gorgeous woman but a refreshingly good standalone actor with decently-written dialogue. Shawn's confrontation with Kara over her manipulation and betrayal rang true with both her motivations and his hurt feelings being believable and sympathetic. The theme of prejudice toward Shawn was highlighted as the excuse, but this was discrimination based on jealousy of his and other 4400's power. As established in Danny's argument to Shawn in "Fear Itself" for wanting to take promicin, this jealousy hints at the growing frustration among the regular public at the increase in P-positives, and their fear of becoming second-class citizens.
Kyle's fanatical role, partly in relation to Jordan.
In further exploring Kyle's fanaticism, this episode continues this season's theme about fundamentalism that can be found among segments of any faith or ideology who fail to account for the unpredictable complexity of humanity. The writers made a brilliant decision to infuse Jordan Collier's missionary zeal with an important degree of private doubt. Viewers first saw indication of his reservations in the season premiere through his discussion with Dr. Burkhoff of his dream of a promicin injectee-filled world turning into nightmare. We are reminded of it here again in his talk with Kyle about his apprehension over the irreversible step they were about to take in their revolution. Moments like this humanize him and are surely what happens among leaders of any ambitious movement, even if they never publicly give them voice. Yet, perhaps like the anarchist, a century ago, who shot US President McKinley, Marxist-Leninists who'd excuse any brutal means to secure Soviet Communism, and -- more recently -- neoconservatives of the Bush administration who projected simplistic plans for the Middle East with a prescience that defied understanding of the region's history and human nature, Kyle's conviction dissuades any uncertainty.
How Kyle explains himself to skeptics and how fresh and realistic his interaction with Tom is this episode.
His confidence in his prophetic book and Cassie is perhaps even better illustrated when its basis in logic is challenged in well-written exchanges with Isabelle and especially his father. A refreshingly realistic bit of texture was Tom's shift in approach in trying to reach his son. The troubled and frantic manner he usually adopts with Kyle would have only shut him down. So, Tom opts for the more practical approach of repressing his emotional tendencies, and speaks with a cautious yet calm tone.
Differences between Kyle's faith and followers of real world faith.
Despite the real world parallels in the portrayal of Kyle's growing faith this season, the unique aspect about it is that his devotion is not purely based upon faith in some imagined higher power. Established religions -- like Christianity, Judaism and Islam – may reference a miracle-ridden mythology and depend on cultural traditions, but they offer no actual evidence of God or a higher purpose. In contrast, Kyle's commitment has been earned by some healthy degree of evidence supplied by Cassie. Despite his trust in Cassie's intentions and the purportedly prophetic nature of the book, his faith is not completely blind. He is acting with the knowledge that the 4400 have fantastical abilities and are from the future to save mankind, and that his power, Cassie, has proven her ability to predict the future. Jordan Collier actually was resurrected. Even Diana intelligently hints at this distinction between Kyle's beliefs and those of other religions by mentioning that Maia can see the future and that perhaps Kyle's faith is not misplaced.
Maia's role
Seeing Maia's character mature was a welcome change. Her ominous visions (and perhaps age) caused her to not only relay her visions to Diana to act upon them, but to actually take the initiative to enter Collier's compound alone. It was a shock seeing her share a personal, though slightly quick, moment with Isabelle. I enjoyed how Maia responded to Isabelle's apology with a reiteration of the lesson she learned from her mother's treatment of April in Season 2 that "saying 'sorry' sometimes isn't enough." It might seem a strangely adult response coming from her otherwise, but the audience's knowledge that this attitude was learned from her mother made it quite believable. I appreciated the twist of her lying about a vision because why wouldn't someone who people believe all the time be tempted to exploit that?
Environmental themes and how they're dealt with.
I applaud the writer's nod to the theme of environmental problems without dwelling on it in a cheesy way. The environmentalist streak in Jordan's Promise City (awkward name?) makes his vision seem benevolent because it connects with the viewers by making us appreciate the indispensability of what his group brings to humanity. I wondered if the way the P-positive woman purified polluted water seemed a bit silly. Then again, there's no reason she should look so dramatically energized and have a clichéd self-serious pose and facial expression. However, and I'm probably nit-picking, the line "Come on in; the water's fine" served as evidence, yet again, that standalone characters often upset the flow of storytelling, as they did in "Try the Pie."
Jordan's movement and the government reaction
In any case, Jordan's political movement demonstrates a sensitivity toward the social and environmental threats facing humanity in a way the government does not. His actions in the interest of the greater good stand in stark contrast to the government's small-minded, excuse for intervening with Promise City by claiming violation of property rights; this would symbolize a historical kind of overzealous capitalist-driven prioritization of individual interests over those of the community. Yet the real reason behind the government's behavior, as stated by Ira Behr and Craig Sweeny in the season premiere's commentary, is to preserve the order and control which Jordan Collier's movement and the 4400 threaten. It also understandably seeks to protect itself and its voting public from the uncertain threat they may pose to humanity -- with promicin's high lethality and the dangerous powers wielded by survivors. In this way, government is treated fairly and realistically, and not as an evil caricature; the soldier had enough honor to honestly refuse Jordan's offer of membership without pretending to go along only to try to escape. Yet there is an undeniably dangerous quality which the state possesses, and I'm glad this program hints at this with a healthy skepticism sometimes not found in The X-Files.
Political analogies: the government's state power versus terrorism.
In witnessing the government's attempts to harness promicin for its own uses through Defense Department contractor Haskel Corp. in Season 3 (perhaps inspired by Haliburton), and now on its own, we see the hypocrisy of outlawing the use of 4400 abilities earlier this season. (Here's where I get on my soapbox for the next few paragraphs to discuss how issues related to terrorism in the show help us understand history and present day policies.) In a similar way, governments are wary of allowing non-state actors to employ the same means they use to achieve their objectives. One example is the use of force. When states use force, it can be organized and planned to have overwhelming impact through war. States can more easily afford high casualties on their side, and conveniently label innocent victims from the other side as accidental "collateral damage." When smaller, weaker groups use force, they must adopt asymmetrical means to win -- often disparagingly referred to as terrorism. It is without doubt that because terrorism doesn't require democratic consent, it can also be waged with very few members who may not have good reason or democratic interests and consent at heart. It also means they are more likely to target civilians if they are the root of state power in a democratic society.
Political analogies: historical examples of terrorism.
Still, history is full of terrorist cases in which resistance of this sort was understandable if not completely ethical. During the Cold War, many Latin American movements fighting for disfranchised Indios were mislabeled agents of Soviet Communism by America's allied ruling class, who obtained US aid and used the military to clamp down on popular will. The French Resistance employed terrorism to fight Vichy France. The American Revolutionary Army employed terrorist tactics in the South under General Nathaniel Greene. Contemporary etiquette of warfare meant troops had to arrive in full formation and announce their presence (band playing and all) before agreeing to fight in ordered fashion. British Generals were appalled at the weaker Americans' guerrilla style fighting intended to take the Britons by surprise by engaging in hit-and-run attacks, disguising themselves among civilians, and shooting from hiding places such as tree tops. American soldiers even spread deceitful propaganda to undecided towns about British-allied natives raping white women. American Revolutionaries violated civilized conduct because they felt it was the only way to win.
Current political issues related to terrorism and why US military aid to certain nations isn't a good idea if we want to stop Al Qaeda-type groups.
Maia's statement that Jordan was one of the good guys again shows how terrorism doesn't make someone automatically evil. This is contrary to the simplistic and hypocritical position adopted by many Western leaders like Tony Blair who arbitrarily call their opponents' actions deplorable but find no objection in similar tactics waged by themselves or their allies. Just this week, the US government has agreed to supply billions of dollars' worth of arms to Israel, and repressive regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. These states' policies only helped create or inspire the Al Qaeda-type groups threatening civilization, and they continue to inflame the situation with actions that increase their membership. Democrats have rightly opposed this aid by pointing to the origins of Al Qaeda members in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. With decades-long American financial and military support, such Arab states have only led to this violently disturbing reaction, which rightly seeks to overthrow despotic systems that have failed their people, but wrongly seeks a solution through an ugly, colonial form of Muslim nationalism that is even more despotic. Where Democrats have historically been wrong is their unwavering support for Israel, based on domestic politics and familiar cultural ground. They have turned a blind eye to Israel's use of terrorism and ethnic cleansing to free its territory of Palestinians, beginning in the 1940s. Democrats and increasing numbers of Republicans have permitted Israel's continued occupation through US-funded and -supplied state violence and intimidation to do what they will without consulting Palestinians before unilaterally deciding how they live.
For decades, Israel's actions have flown in the face of UN resolutions denouncing its continuing settlements beyond sanctioned borders. I recently watched a French documentary by an Arab Jew called "The Wall." It showed how Israel unilaterally decided to build a wall to protect its citizens by crossing the green line up to 6 km into Palestinian territory. This has caused many Palestinian farmers to lose their land, and forced many to take overly circuitous routes to get to their jobs in Israel. Indeed, much of the wall is being built cheaply on Palestinian labor, perhaps as the proposed US-Mexican wall will be built with Mexican labor. I saw a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) report last year about a wealthy Jewish couple who sold their home in Toronto, Canada to move to a settlement newly established on the Palestinian land newly confiscated by the wall's construction. They gave no thought to compensating the Palestinians who've lost their land, so the Israeli state can back their colonialist behavior. Actions like these have occurred for decades, as Palestinians live in squalor.
While terrorist groups like Hamas don't threaten the world the way Islamic fundamentalist groups do, Muslims sympathetic to the Palestinian plight misdirect their outrage by either tolerating or joining Al Qaeda-type groups. This aid package would only strengthen Israel's hand in making it less likely to make peace or even negotiate on terms fair to the Palestinians, including acceptance of Hamas' democratic mandate. It would also strengthen so-called moderate Arab states' hold on power, even though they fund Islamic fundamentalist teachings as a compromise with their restless populace. The Saudi embassy gives out a Qur'an containing exegesis (interpretations of the text) with atypical racist remarks about Jews. It's important to challenge Iran's Ahmadinjad's childish hate-mongering, but the US should keep a better check on its allies' more effective and widespread racism. In this way, America's aid to the Israeli occupation, its military presence in the Middle East, and its support for despotic (so-called "moderate") Arab regimes all fuel the growing Islamic fundamentalist terrorist movement.
Appealing quality of Jordan's offer to save the discrminated 4400 from government and societal oppression.
As this program shows, terrorism often results from discrimination or oppression (often real, occasionally imagined), and, while it can take on irrational and violent traits, it can also be used for good. Jordan Collier's offer of sanctuary to the persecuted 4400 is quite stirring because its heroically protective quality resonates with the audience's sympathy for the plight of discriminated groups throughout history who would have welcomed such an opportunity to freely be themselves. His movement also appeals to a desire for social justice with its elements of brotherly love and his standing up for the down-trodden (seen in how he respected the homeless at the end of last season).
Brilliant strategy of giving out promicin for stabilizing Jordan's revolution.
I only recently realized the brilliance of the writers' move last season in allowing anyone to become a 4400. In doing this, both they and Jordan Collier turned a mission to be carried out by a select few -- vulnerable to discrimination from the fearful majority -- into a popular and more democratic revolution by allowing anyone to become a 4400. This had the added effect of making the 4400s' mission to save humanity increasingly resistant to grassroots and state opposition as membership grows, and, therefore, more stable and likely to succeed. The parallel in religious terms is spreading the faith by accepting new members among a previously-confined chosen people.
Exclusionist streak in Jordan's movement and injustice toward non-4400s.
Yet, there's an exclusionist streak in this movement which won't accept non-4400s, unless they risk the injections to join their ranks; the parallel in religious terms is conversion to the faith to be accepted. By shifting the power balance, as Danny Farrell mentioned in "Fear Itself," isn't the creation of a two-class world an injustice in almost forcing regular humans to take promicin and risk dying? Even if there was no risk, forfeiting their normalcy is quite a price. In addition, some of Collier's terrorist tactics are a bit unsettling, even if understandable and even-tempered. The fact that he has the ability to choose who among the Extra Crispies retains their powers recalls Shawn's mistrust of the potential for Jordan's own accumulation and abuse of power; this would have anti-democratic implications for his revolution. I was relieved he did not kill the government's strike team, since the setting reminded me of the kind in which Westerners are tragically beheaded in Iraq. Yet, he was prepared to mount a counter-attack, which could have killed many innocents. While such targets have the power to control their government's policies with their vote, and would bear some responsibility for the attack, it would still be sad. Even though Jordan's ultimate solution was more passive, there was something chilling about how Promise City unstoppably expanded its borders. History has shown that the line between a justified, protective defense and an aggressive offense that leads to injustice toward the other party is sometimes indistinguishable.
In this fashion, the writers continue to refuse fictional absolutes, in demonstrating that "good" doesn't mean morally perfect (and "bad" doesn't mean inherently evil), by having Jordan prepared to react with violence and willing to expand his zone with force. As a result, they depict a more complex and realistic notion of human nature one doesn't find in most TV shows and I'm thrilled to find in this one.
Little aspects that made the episode work.
It wasn't just the main plot that was very good, but there were little touches and character moments that didn't feel too self-conscious, and were executed more skillfully than they have much of this season. For example, the dinner scene between Tom and Diana was very well done, especially the non-cliché observation by Tom as to the reasons women invite men over: attraction or pity. I also liked how Garrity pointed to Doyle's professional flaws, as he did in the premiere. Regarding the appearance of the show, the special effects for invisible soldier were very well done. The fight scene between Tom and the soldier looked great. It wasn't overly choreographed or tediously long (as on Angel or Buffy) but believably tough, too. I like that Tom knew where the cloaked soldier was hiding but that it didn't make a difference because he didn't react fast enough, and he still was beaten. The soldiers in this episode gave a much better military performance than was given in Season 2's "Lockdown." There was a regular, "uncool" look to many of the extras, especially the woman standing next to Jordan at the end, who cut NTAC's camera connection. Initially, their appearance was off-putting. Yet maybe it was a good choice, considering these might be the kinds of ordinary people who wouldn't look self-consciously dramatic, if this were to happen in the real world, and you were watching them on CNN.
Little things that need improvement on the show.
However, not every detail was well-executed, as minor faults continue to detract from the show's look and sound in post-production. They have to get rid of the slow motion technique used in the teaser when Collier addresses his followers, and used throughout the series. Perhaps, it's how they use it to draw out a moment; it always looks cheap – as if there are too few frames per second and this was a last-minute decision made in post-production to give the scene some gravity the director felt lacking. Even when composed music is as forced and formulaic as that of "Lost," it definitely heightens mood. For the best effect, I'm a huge fan of Mark Snow's score for Seasons 3 through 6 of The X-Files and the melodic work by Bear McCreary in the new Battlestar Galactica. I appreciate this show's shift in respect toward letting dramatic moments stand on their own merits by not clubbing the audience over the head with the scene's meaning through cheesy Top 40 music and lyrics. However, there were still problems with the much-preferred score. The triumphant music for the teaser's rousing speech scene and Maia's alert of impending doom could have been better; it could have had a less artificial-sounding, clunky synthesizer; perhaps it needed more layering, more dynamism through loud and soft, or some well-synthesized strings. I'm still having a problem with the throbbing bass synth sound used to create suspense, when it just feels a bit boring to me. The sound of the synth toward the act break before the theme song sounded better. I have heard better music from John Van Tongeren and Claude Foisy and the music during the end montage (and the choice of that scene only having music and no other sound was a good one) was much better. Also, there was a cool sound effect when Shawn and Maia were watching Jordan on TV, which didn't sound like some rip-off (which many shows do) of Mark Snow's sting or that of any other show or movie.
Return of the Wolfe: the writer of the episode.
While Robert Hewitt Wolfe has been serving as Creative Consultant since "Try the Pie," this episode features his return as a writer. He wrote the Season 1 episode "Trial by Fire," but is much more impressive to me for his excellent work alongside – and, often, co-writing with – head writer Ira Steven Behr on the unique and equally political Star Trek Deep Space Nine, which Mr. Behr headed in the last 5 of its seven year run. Based on his lovingly-expressed thoughts on the DS9 DVD sets, Mr. Wolfe shows a keen interest in history and politics. After working on non-political shows, it's nice to see his passion and adeptness for political insight into the human condition working so well to bring out what this show does best. I hope he stays on.
8.4 out of 10
(I should emphasize the only the rarest of shows get 10 -- only the absolute best episodes of The X-Files ("Talitha Cumi", "Paper Hearts", "Redux II", etc.), Battlestar Galactica ("Pegasus","Lay Down Your Burdens", "Occupation"/"Precipice") and Deep Space Nine ("In the Pale Moonlight"). I would give the best episode of The 4400 to date, "Terrible Swift Sword"/"Fifty Fifty," around 9.0, and I really loved that.)
My review of "'Til We Have Built Jerusalem"
Rough summary about why it was so good, including the supporting performances.
As the New York Times critic Janet Maslin wrote upon the release of "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn" (although The Motion Picture has always been my favorite Trek film), "Now this is more like it." (I've been waiting to write that!) Since the season premiere I've been awaiting the kind of quality of the final three episodes of Season 3 and the continuing arc of that season. I'd begun to lose hope, but my faith in the show has been restored as not only the plot, but the overall pacing and dialogue are up to those previously-set standards. This was a marked difference in writing quality from previous episodes because (other than avoiding the X-Filesian elements that detracted originality points for "The Marked") it focused solely on main characters, whose moments were only heightened by supporting characters like Meghan Doyle and Senator Lenhoff. Doyle's moments with Tom were much improved from previous episodes, especially the earlier standalones, in which their moments were occasionally awkward or rushed. I mistook glee for sleaziness in Kevin Tighe's Senator Lenhoff's last appearance; his acting is actually quite good.
Shawn's subplot and what I loved about it.
This season, Shawn has had the most consistently interesting elements of the continuing story. I enjoyed how he was portrayed as vulnerable enough to sleep with a patient's daughter, named Kara; surely, he violated some doctor/patient boundary, but he was human enough to not be perfectly disciplined, just as he had been in sleeping with Isabelle. It should be noted that Kara was played by not only a gorgeous woman but a refreshingly good standalone actor with decently-written dialogue. Shawn's confrontation with Kara over her manipulation and betrayal rang true with both her motivations and his hurt feelings being believable and sympathetic. The theme of prejudice toward Shawn was highlighted as the excuse, but this was discrimination based on jealousy of his and other 4400's power. As established in Danny's argument to Shawn in "Fear Itself" for wanting to take promicin, this jealousy hints at the growing frustration among the regular public at the increase in P-positives, and their fear of becoming second-class citizens.
Kyle's fanatical role, partly in relation to Jordan.
In further exploring Kyle's fanaticism, this episode continues this season's theme about fundamentalism that can be found among segments of any faith or ideology who fail to account for the unpredictable complexity of humanity. The writers made a brilliant decision to infuse Jordan Collier's missionary zeal with an important degree of private doubt. Viewers first saw indication of his reservations in the season premiere through his discussion with Dr. Burkhoff of his dream of a promicin injectee-filled world turning into nightmare. We are reminded of it here again in his talk with Kyle about his apprehension over the irreversible step they were about to take in their revolution. Moments like this humanize him and are surely what happens among leaders of any ambitious movement, even if they never publicly give them voice. Yet, perhaps like the anarchist, a century ago, who shot US President McKinley, Marxist-Leninists who'd excuse any brutal means to secure Soviet Communism, and -- more recently -- neoconservatives of the Bush administration who projected simplistic plans for the Middle East with a prescience that defied understanding of the region's history and human nature, Kyle's conviction dissuades any uncertainty.
How Kyle explains himself to skeptics and how fresh and realistic his interaction with Tom is this episode.
His confidence in his prophetic book and Cassie is perhaps even better illustrated when its basis in logic is challenged in well-written exchanges with Isabelle and especially his father. A refreshingly realistic bit of texture was Tom's shift in approach in trying to reach his son. The troubled and frantic manner he usually adopts with Kyle would have only shut him down. So, Tom opts for the more practical approach of repressing his emotional tendencies, and speaks with a cautious yet calm tone.
Differences between Kyle's faith and followers of real world faith.
Despite the real world parallels in the portrayal of Kyle's growing faith this season, the unique aspect about it is that his devotion is not purely based upon faith in some imagined higher power. Established religions -- like Christianity, Judaism and Islam – may reference a miracle-ridden mythology and depend on cultural traditions, but they offer no actual evidence of God or a higher purpose. In contrast, Kyle's commitment has been earned by some healthy degree of evidence supplied by Cassie. Despite his trust in Cassie's intentions and the purportedly prophetic nature of the book, his faith is not completely blind. He is acting with the knowledge that the 4400 have fantastical abilities and are from the future to save mankind, and that his power, Cassie, has proven her ability to predict the future. Jordan Collier actually was resurrected. Even Diana intelligently hints at this distinction between Kyle's beliefs and those of other religions by mentioning that Maia can see the future and that perhaps Kyle's faith is not misplaced.
Maia's role
Seeing Maia's character mature was a welcome change. Her ominous visions (and perhaps age) caused her to not only relay her visions to Diana to act upon them, but to actually take the initiative to enter Collier's compound alone. It was a shock seeing her share a personal, though slightly quick, moment with Isabelle. I enjoyed how Maia responded to Isabelle's apology with a reiteration of the lesson she learned from her mother's treatment of April in Season 2 that "saying 'sorry' sometimes isn't enough." It might seem a strangely adult response coming from her otherwise, but the audience's knowledge that this attitude was learned from her mother made it quite believable. I appreciated the twist of her lying about a vision because why wouldn't someone who people believe all the time be tempted to exploit that?
Environmental themes and how they're dealt with.
I applaud the writer's nod to the theme of environmental problems without dwelling on it in a cheesy way. The environmentalist streak in Jordan's Promise City (awkward name?) makes his vision seem benevolent because it connects with the viewers by making us appreciate the indispensability of what his group brings to humanity. I wondered if the way the P-positive woman purified polluted water seemed a bit silly. Then again, there's no reason she should look so dramatically energized and have a clichéd self-serious pose and facial expression. However, and I'm probably nit-picking, the line "Come on in; the water's fine" served as evidence, yet again, that standalone characters often upset the flow of storytelling, as they did in "Try the Pie."
Jordan's movement and the government reaction
In any case, Jordan's political movement demonstrates a sensitivity toward the social and environmental threats facing humanity in a way the government does not. His actions in the interest of the greater good stand in stark contrast to the government's small-minded, excuse for intervening with Promise City by claiming violation of property rights; this would symbolize a historical kind of overzealous capitalist-driven prioritization of individual interests over those of the community. Yet the real reason behind the government's behavior, as stated by Ira Behr and Craig Sweeny in the season premiere's commentary, is to preserve the order and control which Jordan Collier's movement and the 4400 threaten. It also understandably seeks to protect itself and its voting public from the uncertain threat they may pose to humanity -- with promicin's high lethality and the dangerous powers wielded by survivors. In this way, government is treated fairly and realistically, and not as an evil caricature; the soldier had enough honor to honestly refuse Jordan's offer of membership without pretending to go along only to try to escape. Yet there is an undeniably dangerous quality which the state possesses, and I'm glad this program hints at this with a healthy skepticism sometimes not found in The X-Files.
Political analogies: the government's state power versus terrorism.
In witnessing the government's attempts to harness promicin for its own uses through Defense Department contractor Haskel Corp. in Season 3 (perhaps inspired by Haliburton), and now on its own, we see the hypocrisy of outlawing the use of 4400 abilities earlier this season. (Here's where I get on my soapbox for the next few paragraphs to discuss how issues related to terrorism in the show help us understand history and present day policies.) In a similar way, governments are wary of allowing non-state actors to employ the same means they use to achieve their objectives. One example is the use of force. When states use force, it can be organized and planned to have overwhelming impact through war. States can more easily afford high casualties on their side, and conveniently label innocent victims from the other side as accidental "collateral damage." When smaller, weaker groups use force, they must adopt asymmetrical means to win -- often disparagingly referred to as terrorism. It is without doubt that because terrorism doesn't require democratic consent, it can also be waged with very few members who may not have good reason or democratic interests and consent at heart. It also means they are more likely to target civilians if they are the root of state power in a democratic society.
Political analogies: historical examples of terrorism.
Still, history is full of terrorist cases in which resistance of this sort was understandable if not completely ethical. During the Cold War, many Latin American movements fighting for disfranchised Indios were mislabeled agents of Soviet Communism by America's allied ruling class, who obtained US aid and used the military to clamp down on popular will. The French Resistance employed terrorism to fight Vichy France. The American Revolutionary Army employed terrorist tactics in the South under General Nathaniel Greene. Contemporary etiquette of warfare meant troops had to arrive in full formation and announce their presence (band playing and all) before agreeing to fight in ordered fashion. British Generals were appalled at the weaker Americans' guerrilla style fighting intended to take the Britons by surprise by engaging in hit-and-run attacks, disguising themselves among civilians, and shooting from hiding places such as tree tops. American soldiers even spread deceitful propaganda to undecided towns about British-allied natives raping white women. American Revolutionaries violated civilized conduct because they felt it was the only way to win.
Current political issues related to terrorism and why US military aid to certain nations isn't a good idea if we want to stop Al Qaeda-type groups.
Maia's statement that Jordan was one of the good guys again shows how terrorism doesn't make someone automatically evil. This is contrary to the simplistic and hypocritical position adopted by many Western leaders like Tony Blair who arbitrarily call their opponents' actions deplorable but find no objection in similar tactics waged by themselves or their allies. Just this week, the US government has agreed to supply billions of dollars' worth of arms to Israel, and repressive regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. These states' policies only helped create or inspire the Al Qaeda-type groups threatening civilization, and they continue to inflame the situation with actions that increase their membership. Democrats have rightly opposed this aid by pointing to the origins of Al Qaeda members in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. With decades-long American financial and military support, such Arab states have only led to this violently disturbing reaction, which rightly seeks to overthrow despotic systems that have failed their people, but wrongly seeks a solution through an ugly, colonial form of Muslim nationalism that is even more despotic. Where Democrats have historically been wrong is their unwavering support for Israel, based on domestic politics and familiar cultural ground. They have turned a blind eye to Israel's use of terrorism and ethnic cleansing to free its territory of Palestinians, beginning in the 1940s. Democrats and increasing numbers of Republicans have permitted Israel's continued occupation through US-funded and -supplied state violence and intimidation to do what they will without consulting Palestinians before unilaterally deciding how they live.
For decades, Israel's actions have flown in the face of UN resolutions denouncing its continuing settlements beyond sanctioned borders. I recently watched a French documentary by an Arab Jew called "The Wall." It showed how Israel unilaterally decided to build a wall to protect its citizens by crossing the green line up to 6 km into Palestinian territory. This has caused many Palestinian farmers to lose their land, and forced many to take overly circuitous routes to get to their jobs in Israel. Indeed, much of the wall is being built cheaply on Palestinian labor, perhaps as the proposed US-Mexican wall will be built with Mexican labor. I saw a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) report last year about a wealthy Jewish couple who sold their home in Toronto, Canada to move to a settlement newly established on the Palestinian land newly confiscated by the wall's construction. They gave no thought to compensating the Palestinians who've lost their land, so the Israeli state can back their colonialist behavior. Actions like these have occurred for decades, as Palestinians live in squalor.
While terrorist groups like Hamas don't threaten the world the way Islamic fundamentalist groups do, Muslims sympathetic to the Palestinian plight misdirect their outrage by either tolerating or joining Al Qaeda-type groups. This aid package would only strengthen Israel's hand in making it less likely to make peace or even negotiate on terms fair to the Palestinians, including acceptance of Hamas' democratic mandate. It would also strengthen so-called moderate Arab states' hold on power, even though they fund Islamic fundamentalist teachings as a compromise with their restless populace. The Saudi embassy gives out a Qur'an containing exegesis (interpretations of the text) with atypical racist remarks about Jews. It's important to challenge Iran's Ahmadinjad's childish hate-mongering, but the US should keep a better check on its allies' more effective and widespread racism. In this way, America's aid to the Israeli occupation, its military presence in the Middle East, and its support for despotic (so-called "moderate") Arab regimes all fuel the growing Islamic fundamentalist terrorist movement.
Appealing quality of Jordan's offer to save the discrminated 4400 from government and societal oppression.
As this program shows, terrorism often results from discrimination or oppression (often real, occasionally imagined), and, while it can take on irrational and violent traits, it can also be used for good. Jordan Collier's offer of sanctuary to the persecuted 4400 is quite stirring because its heroically protective quality resonates with the audience's sympathy for the plight of discriminated groups throughout history who would have welcomed such an opportunity to freely be themselves. His movement also appeals to a desire for social justice with its elements of brotherly love and his standing up for the down-trodden (seen in how he respected the homeless at the end of last season).
Brilliant strategy of giving out promicin for stabilizing Jordan's revolution.
I only recently realized the brilliance of the writers' move last season in allowing anyone to become a 4400. In doing this, both they and Jordan Collier turned a mission to be carried out by a select few -- vulnerable to discrimination from the fearful majority -- into a popular and more democratic revolution by allowing anyone to become a 4400. This had the added effect of making the 4400s' mission to save humanity increasingly resistant to grassroots and state opposition as membership grows, and, therefore, more stable and likely to succeed. The parallel in religious terms is spreading the faith by accepting new members among a previously-confined chosen people.
Exclusionist streak in Jordan's movement and injustice toward non-4400s.
Yet, there's an exclusionist streak in this movement which won't accept non-4400s, unless they risk the injections to join their ranks; the parallel in religious terms is conversion to the faith to be accepted. By shifting the power balance, as Danny Farrell mentioned in "Fear Itself," isn't the creation of a two-class world an injustice in almost forcing regular humans to take promicin and risk dying? Even if there was no risk, forfeiting their normalcy is quite a price. In addition, some of Collier's terrorist tactics are a bit unsettling, even if understandable and even-tempered. The fact that he has the ability to choose who among the Extra Crispies retains their powers recalls Shawn's mistrust of the potential for Jordan's own accumulation and abuse of power; this would have anti-democratic implications for his revolution. I was relieved he did not kill the government's strike team, since the setting reminded me of the kind in which Westerners are tragically beheaded in Iraq. Yet, he was prepared to mount a counter-attack, which could have killed many innocents. While such targets have the power to control their government's policies with their vote, and would bear some responsibility for the attack, it would still be sad. Even though Jordan's ultimate solution was more passive, there was something chilling about how Promise City unstoppably expanded its borders. History has shown that the line between a justified, protective defense and an aggressive offense that leads to injustice toward the other party is sometimes indistinguishable.
In this fashion, the writers continue to refuse fictional absolutes, in demonstrating that "good" doesn't mean morally perfect (and "bad" doesn't mean inherently evil), by having Jordan prepared to react with violence and willing to expand his zone with force. As a result, they depict a more complex and realistic notion of human nature one doesn't find in most TV shows and I'm thrilled to find in this one.
Little aspects that made the episode work.
It wasn't just the main plot that was very good, but there were little touches and character moments that didn't feel too self-conscious, and were executed more skillfully than they have much of this season. For example, the dinner scene between Tom and Diana was very well done, especially the non-cliché observation by Tom as to the reasons women invite men over: attraction or pity. I also liked how Garrity pointed to Doyle's professional flaws, as he did in the premiere. Regarding the appearance of the show, the special effects for invisible soldier were very well done. The fight scene between Tom and the soldier looked great. It wasn't overly choreographed or tediously long (as on Angel or Buffy) but believably tough, too. I like that Tom knew where the cloaked soldier was hiding but that it didn't make a difference because he didn't react fast enough, and he still was beaten. The soldiers in this episode gave a much better military performance than was given in Season 2's "Lockdown." There was a regular, "uncool" look to many of the extras, especially the woman standing next to Jordan at the end, who cut NTAC's camera connection. Initially, their appearance was off-putting. Yet maybe it was a good choice, considering these might be the kinds of ordinary people who wouldn't look self-consciously dramatic, if this were to happen in the real world, and you were watching them on CNN.
Little things that need improvement on the show.
However, not every detail was well-executed, as minor faults continue to detract from the show's look and sound in post-production. They have to get rid of the slow motion technique used in the teaser when Collier addresses his followers, and used throughout the series. Perhaps, it's how they use it to draw out a moment; it always looks cheap – as if there are too few frames per second and this was a last-minute decision made in post-production to give the scene some gravity the director felt lacking. Even when composed music is as forced and formulaic as that of "Lost," it definitely heightens mood. For the best effect, I'm a huge fan of Mark Snow's score for Seasons 3 through 6 of The X-Files and the melodic work by Bear McCreary in the new Battlestar Galactica. I appreciate this show's shift in respect toward letting dramatic moments stand on their own merits by not clubbing the audience over the head with the scene's meaning through cheesy Top 40 music and lyrics. However, there were still problems with the much-preferred score. The triumphant music for the teaser's rousing speech scene and Maia's alert of impending doom could have been better; it could have had a less artificial-sounding, clunky synthesizer; perhaps it needed more layering, more dynamism through loud and soft, or some well-synthesized strings. I'm still having a problem with the throbbing bass synth sound used to create suspense, when it just feels a bit boring to me. The sound of the synth toward the act break before the theme song sounded better. I have heard better music from John Van Tongeren and Claude Foisy and the music during the end montage (and the choice of that scene only having music and no other sound was a good one) was much better. Also, there was a cool sound effect when Shawn and Maia were watching Jordan on TV, which didn't sound like some rip-off (which many shows do) of Mark Snow's sting or that of any other show or movie.
Return of the Wolfe: the writer of the episode.
While Robert Hewitt Wolfe has been serving as Creative Consultant since "Try the Pie," this episode features his return as a writer. He wrote the Season 1 episode "Trial by Fire," but is much more impressive to me for his excellent work alongside – and, often, co-writing with – head writer Ira Steven Behr on the unique and equally political Star Trek Deep Space Nine, which Mr. Behr headed in the last 5 of its seven year run. Based on his lovingly-expressed thoughts on the DS9 DVD sets, Mr. Wolfe shows a keen interest in history and politics. After working on non-political shows, it's nice to see his passion and adeptness for political insight into the human condition working so well to bring out what this show does best. I hope he stays on.
8.4 out of 10
(I should emphasize the only the rarest of shows get 10 -- only the absolute best episodes of The X-Files ("Talitha Cumi", "Paper Hearts", "Redux II", etc.), Battlestar Galactica ("Pegasus","Lay Down Your Burdens", "Occupation"/"Precipice") and Deep Space Nine ("In the Pale Moonlight"). I would give the best episode of The 4400 to date, "Terrible Swift Sword"/"Fifty Fifty," around 9.0, and I really loved that.)
Last edited:
Great 6 minute video commentary on the episode "Til We Have Built Jerusalem" by writer Robert Hewitt Wolfe.
http://video.usanetwork.com/player/?id=134025
http://video.usanetwork.com/player/?id=134025
skjuls
Refugee
I have been watching The 4400 since last year. My sister watched from the beginning and got me hooked.
Alright here's my review of the week before last's episode -- probably the worst one of all, if not the season.
My review of: "No Exit" by Adam Levy
Nowadays when I watch an episode, I try to not look at who the writer is, so that, based on the expectations I have of given writers, I'm not prejudiced into touting something as great or ineffective before it has finished. No offense to Adam Levy, since he worked on "The Gospel According to Jordan Collier," but, after watching the episode, I was crossing my fingers hoping Ira Steven Behr had not written this poorly-executed effort at a "bottle show" – which, according to the Writers' Blog, is an attempt to save the network money. I absolutely loved this episode's emotionally-intimate moments, especially between long-established characters. However, what could have been elaborated upon for a powerful character piece was ruined by a seeming identity crisis in choosing the focus of the show – or, rather, in deciding to divide the focus between a worthwhile character exploration and an uninteresting action dynamic to keep us entertained. I presumed the writers understood the focus should be "the characters, stupid." Instead, half the story time was misguidedly redirected toward satisfying the standalone plot mechanics of a dull suspense thriller. Still, as I'll comment toward the end of my review, P.J.'s 4400 ability to bring together adversaries in a psychic game of cooperation provided interesting commentary on the feelings of powerless citizens toward world leaders, especially in the dominant West, who refuse to admit fault or negotiate with opponents by dismissing them as irredeemable. P.J.'s yearning for understanding among the most pivotal players in the struggle between 4400s and non-4400s, and his ability's use in the service of this goal captured the spirit of what the concerned and voiceless in our world only wish they could do to bring peace.
Why such standalones are a waste of the series' potential.
I checked a spring 2007 interview with our man Behr on tv.ign.com and this episode (Number 8) was the annual, experimental "palette cleanser" to which he referred, just as was last year's "Blink." However, I was really hoping for the kind of innovative and dramatically-powerful story he delivered in Season 2 around the same time of year with "Life Interrupted" or even last year when he co-wrote "The Home Front." Ira Behr has overseen successful "bottle" shows, such as DS9's "Starship Down." I hopefully expect he's saving all his best work for the second half of the season, after a disappointing premiere. Yet, such a decision confuses me, since there are so few episodes a year, and much of the otherwise fascinating and innovative continuing story has sometimes felt more disjointed (and perhaps more rushed) than in past years. Instead of dissatisfying "Touched by an Angel"-style drama of standalone main plots, I feel it would have been better to further detail the continuing story elements (especially Kyle, Jordan, and Shawn's journeys) of each episode to fully fill that episode. I just don't buy the argument that, in order to win over new fans, it is better to have a mediocre standalone plot that takes away time from the continuing story rather than a well-executed and textured fully-serialized set of episodes. I've introduced myself to serialized shows part-way, but instead of being dissuaded by the complexity, I was won over by the engaging drama. Simply put, I don't see how compromising the strengths of the show is going to win over new viewers; it will likely just lose older partial fans of the show when they do check it out. The standalone story elements could have sufficed but the writing quality needed much more work to be worthy of the third of the season that they have consumed so far; even so-called mythology episodes like "Try the Pie" with detracting standalone elements and somewhat lesser standalone townspeople characters are obviously far less engaging than full-on mythology episodes like "Till We Have Built Jerusalem."
Similarities with "Blink."
Season 3's "Blink" made the same mistakes as this episode. It provided an opportunity to understand more about Diana and Tom's past and two of their deeply psychologically-affecting relationships. The drama provided by each lead's interaction with hallucinations of Diana's ex-fiancé and especially Tom's father allowed for some realistic and relatable aspects of the characters to be exposed. Nevertheless, the writing staff needlessly balanced the character drama with ineffective "excitement." They focused half the story on the silly detective work of finding out how this happened to our heroes and the uninteresting process of catching the cookie distributor. This plot-driven exercise only detracted from what could have been a great character piece. This was a missed opportunity to know so much more about Tom and Diana or at least explore more dialogue and interesting moments with their past loved ones. In "No Exit," the dramatically-intimate prospects were perhaps greater and potentially more effective by involving more of the main cast. Yet, partly for those reasons, the continual shift toward plot-driven jeopardy was even more of a dramatic mood killer this time around. P.J's game wasn't nearly as interesting as the apparently incidental character moments that came between the supposed "meat" of the episode – the action.
Problems with subplot.
I sympathized with the set-up needed to bring all these characters face-to-face so they could have great drama. However, too much story effort was put into explaining this set-up and making it (and P.J.) a character in itself that exploration of the existing characters was far less deep than it could have been. The dramatic point of the episode was lost in self-consciously trying to make it superficially entertaining, and neither goal was well achieved. Even if the characters reacted believably, the whole suspense dynamic felt dull, cheap or silly with a living NTAC building come to life; this kind of situation was more expertly done on Star Trek: DS9's "Civil Defense" in which the station's security protocols threatened the crew; here, even if viewers knew it was a dream, the same threats just felt hokey, especially the sliding doors and ventilation system machinations. While some sort of basic plot device could have provided the backdrop for getting Collier's group and NTAC's staff to work together, it should have been simplified, so we had more time to give the wonderful character interactions their full due.
Presentation and finer details were lacking.
I'm not sure if the director was to blame, but there was something off about the tone of how the characters met (except perhaps Shawn, Isabelle and Kyle) that felt boring and started off the show poorly. Some of the acting or perhaps how such acting was captured on camera (Isabelle's reaction to Shawn's "death", Maia's screaming, etc) or even scripted was also less than stellar. This was strange because the show has a very talented cast. One notable exception was the way Meghan Doyle fiddled and reacted to being shocked, which seemed quite embarrassingly real.
Original character dynamics that made the story interesting.
There were minor elements related to the boring subplot that deserve praise for being refreshing and unique. Diana, one of the heroes, was shown up by a minor supporting character for her ineffectual idea of protecting themselves from Jordan's side by barricading the room. A nice touch was in having Jordan's terrorist group more willing to cooperate than the NTAC staff. Jordan was willing to share the risk in helping Tom escort P.J. to end the game early, Kyle and Isabelle welcomed Maia's help, and Isabelle pressed a distrustful Diana to cooperate. I also appreciated that working together produced some mutual respect between Tom and Jordan, but was not some magical breakthrough in politically uniting the two. The complexity to this new level in their relationship was conveyed in Jordan's polite but insistent request to Tom that one of them end their phone conversation, since they both expressed the limits to their rapprochement.
Severity of the justice system toward P.J.'s crime.
While P.J.'s success in even momentarily breaking barriers between Tom and Jordan was not lost on the audience, an interesting choice was made to have Marco and especially Diana unimpressed by what P.J. had accomplished. They seemed unmoved by his pleas for the need for understanding and unsympathetic to his plight in being arrested for doing some good. It's interesting to note the very realistic hypocrisy in Diana's more loving conduct when her sister committed the same crime. In this way, viewers can see the inherent cruelty in a rigid justice system that sometimes fails to take into account the context of a person's crime. From unfair treatment of the poor to enemy combatants in Abu Ghraib, similar black or white justice is meted out in the US and the larger world. In P.J.'s sentencing, one sees the harsh treatment of ordinary folks who inject themselves, either out of ideological persuasion by Jordan's message, or fear of changing power dynamics that would put them at a disadvantage if they didn't.
Intimate character moments.
The best dramatic use of the characters did not come from suspicious, fearful reactions to the tense set-up, but from softer, personal moments generated by long-standing personal and/or political grievances over past and existing relationships. However, while the drama derived from characters trying to get to know each other in a new light was a neat idea, perhaps it was less interestingly and convincingly handled. When she wasn't screaming in fear, Maia had an interesting role in confronting Diana and Marco about their awkward distancing – much to Diana's nicely-acted annoyance. This allowed some good discussion about their feelings and their desire to preserve their friendship; this is the kind of thing fans have been waiting to watch. I'm still unsure about Meghan Doyle as a quality character or at least her use in the show. Moments between she and Tom, while believable, still feel slightly contrived and uninteresting, especially the last scene in which Tom hugs her. In contrast, Kyle and Isabelle's relationship has been better handled such that no one can surely predict whether they will get together romantically; avoiding that kind of fatalism makes their relationship more believable. In any case, I liked Meghan and Tom's discussion of how he keeps moving forward by concentrating on the task directly ahead of him. It felt true. Tom's conversation with Kyle was another well-written moment allowing each to believably express his perspective about Kyle's terrorist role this season. Through this exchange we understand each one's personal and political differences. A nice touch was how Shawn's death slightly affected Kyle. It would have been cliché to have it shake his beliefs completely and have him turn on his mission. The writers chose a more realistic approach in making Kyle adopt the mindset of terrorists who witness deaths all the time in their search for a better world. Kyle's reaction was such that he only questioned slightly his willingness to risk lives to make the prophesy and Jordan's vision a reality. People's judgment is often slow to change and it's appropriate that the writers realized this.
Best of all the character moments were the interactions concerning Shawn. There were so few moments, but they all felt meaningful and deserved to be mined for all they were worth instead of having him implausibly sacrificed for some suspense dynamic. Shawn waking up next to Isabelle was a chilling touch. I loved his reaction (evident in his body language and tone) to Jordan's group as well as how Kyle pointed out how his relationship with Jordan was more equal than Shawn's had been. It felt convincingly true because all the episodes this year showed this, but I hadn't yet realized it; I wonder if Shawn felt some jealousy toward Kyle over this. Not everything was great; the distinction between Jordan as someone who "shoots first and asks questions later" and Shawn's more peaceful approach was a bit obvious, but acceptable. Perhaps Shawn's "death" did provide some dramatic use when Tom and Jordan discussed his importance to them; I had never heard the characters talk about their history with him that way; it was great to see, but also far too brief.
The most politically-insightful and relatable dramatic moment.
Perhaps the nicest moment in the entire episode involved Tom arguing with Jordan over each one's responsibility for the world-wide political turmoil. The writers insightfully gave each side a valid perspective. Both were able to point out how each one's inflexibility had led to his (adoptive) son's estrangement. Tom blamed their present predicament on Jordan's irresponsible distribution of promicin to the masses. He argued was causing a mounting death toll and unleashing dangerous abilities among P-positives, including P.J.. Jordan convincingly retorted that the government's counterrevolutionary tactics of heavy-handed criminalization and fear-mongering only forced "the gifted" into hiding and prevented them learning to use their abilities safely and constructively. This exchange reminded me of the war on drugs debate. Proponents of legalization sometimes claim the violence and enrichment to drug cartels and mafias come from government criminalization, which makes drugs less accessible and drives up the profit to those who provide it. Careful regulation, they say, might make the problem more manageable. The difference between the War on Drugs and the War on Promicin is that I'm opposed to dangers legalization of drugs might bring in making its availability easier, especially to minors; while 1930s prohibition didn't halt alcoholism, it did lessen it, and making something legal tends to make it more acceptable, when perhaps it shouldn't be. In the case of Jordan's distribution of promicin, such actions seem carried out with the best intentions of saving humanity to prevent the accumulation of power among a few.
Political parallels in how states' counterrevolutionary behavior can worsen things: How America's reaction to Al Qaeda only strengthened its cause.
In any case, Jordan's response reflects a politically-astute and historically-accurate observation by the writers that state reactions to perceived threats sometimes increases the power and likelihood of such threats. For example, the Bush administration's reaction to 9/11 by invading Iraq involved a misunderstanding and intentional miscommunication to the Western public of the nature and causes of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Despite the good intentions of some in the US military, the war and occupation have been carried out with criminally immoral carelessness. Members of the administration have failed to gain Iraqis' trust in refusing to swear off permanent US bases and, most importantly, potential US profit from Iraq's oil reserves. Using the rhetoric of free enterprise, Dick Cheney and others pushed to ensure that American business can profit from Iraq's vast oil reserves, instead of stipulating that petroleum will only be used for the benefit of Iraqis. This sends the message that America is there primarily for its own interests and not to help Iraqi society. US incompetence also contextualizes the reasons for the distrust of Iraqi insurgents (which have different goals than Al Qaeda-type groups) toward America's presence in their homeland. As more innocent Iraqis are mistreated or have their loved ones killed or maimed (as collateral damage in perilous warfare Americans would never risk among their own), they are more likely to join the insurgency. The line between ally and opponent in Iraq is related to the experience of the occupation.
Consequently, the worldwide popularity – and, therefore, the power -- of Al Qaeda-type groups among desperate and misguided Muslim youth has indisputably grown to a far greater threat to not only Western, but human civilizations than had Iraq been left alone. None of this argument takes away from the responsibility for the racist kind of colonial nationalism Al Qaeda-type groups preach. However, it recognizes the West's part in inflaming that unjustifiable ideology. It is important to acknowledge the appeal of some of Al Qaeda's direct goals of ending the Israeli occupation and a militarized US presence that buttresses repressive regimes in the Middle East to protect petroleum interests. This in no way excuses Al Qaeda-type groups' actions or sees as rational their more honor-based, selfish notion of Islamic identity – an identity based more on taking offense when foreigners harm Muslims than when fellow Muslims commit wrong. However, a similar irrational nationalism occurs among many cultures, the US included, in which notions of moral superiority are selectively sensitive toward certain injustices in the world, but not others.
Political parallels with concerns over uncompromising factions: the real Tom Baldwin and Jordan Collier. The most admirable aspect of the P-positive standalone subplot was its poignant relevance to the present political climate. The idea of an ordinary person getting world leaders – let alone, pivotal players in the future's outcome – to reconcile their differences and allow for peace is relatable and unique in its own way. P.J. demonstrated emotionally-realistic reactions to political tensions we see in the real world that were mirrored on the show by various sides being unwilling to understand one another.
In the last few weeks, certain issues in the Democratic Party's presidential campaign have come to the fore regarding how the US should treat adversarial regimes, especially Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. Democratic Party discourse showed promise when candidates Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama had, at different times, expressed a desire to negotiate openly and at the highest levels with such regimes to contrast themselves with Bush's haughtiness. Disappointingly, they have been quick to recant or modify such positions, in recent weeks. This may be an attempt to appeal to supposedly moderate, nationalist values. Such intolerance toward opposing regimes has been typical of most US administrations. It is based on the supposition that America is morally superior, and has not done anything to deserve their opposition. There is a morally false assumption that these regimes are in the wrong and must compromise first if the US is to risk its status and show them equal respect. Yet the historical record shows a different picture in which these regimes' hostility has – at least, partly -- been brought about by American abuse and interference in the lives and freedom of their peoples. Add to this the fact that these countries are substantially poorer, weaker and more prone to suffering the effects of a global system skewed toward American interests, and the wrongs committed by them are more understandable. Their mistakes and aggressiveness should not be simplistically used as evidence of inherent evil in refusing to surrender to American wants. There are rational reasons for distrust of American power.
US policy toward Latin America.
Despite proclamations that America eschewed the colonialism practiced by European powers, the historical facts show this to be a hypocritical reading of America's approach toward Latin America. With the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt corollary, the US claimed to protect Latin Americans from European colonialism by declaring the Americas in its sphere of interest; instead of serving Latin American interests, however, they implemented interfering and controlling policies to serve US interests. When it was not acting colonially in directly seizing land from places like Mexico (and the Philippines in the Pacific), it practiced neocolonialism to allow US citizens, in the spirit of individualist capitalism, (not directly the state) a free hand in the region to directly benefit American society. In this way, it demanded economic and political access in the affairs of Latin American nations, so that US business could profit at the expense of mostly poorer groups, especially Indios. During the Cold War, the US employed the rhetoric of fighting Communism to ensure friendly regimes serving US economic and political interests. This often meant supporting brutal, dictatorial regimes like Augusto Pinochet in Chile. Oftentimes, it meant thwarting the people's will, as the CIA did in funding a military coup to overthrow Guatemala's democratically-elected, leftist government of Jacobo Arbenz when he threatened the presence of the United Fruit Company.
Castro's Cuba.
In the case of Cuba, the US-supported General Fulgencio Batista's oppressive means to allow whites to prosper and Americans to use the country as their own resort. Fidel Castro may have used regrettably violent and anti-democratic means to attain and hold onto power, but he has largely worked in the interests of helping the poor reach a living standard unknown in the region. In contrast to Bush's callous neglect for both saving thousands in the wake of Hurricaine Katrina or helping survivors in the aftermath, Castro ensured there were no mass casualties, as his government mobilized its resources to save lives. John Kennedy's repeated attempts to assassinate Castro and overthrow his regime with the Bay of Pigs attack of 1961 hardly helped inspire trust in America's moral superiority. It led to Castro's greater closeness with the Soviet Union for aid and protection in the form of missile installation. It was only at the urging of Nikita Khrushchev for compromise that a solution was found to the Cuban Missile Crisis. In exchange for removing missiles from Cuba, Kennedy agreed to accept Castro's regime and to remove US missiles pointed at the USSR from Turkey – only, at a later date, to avoid publicly acknowledging a compromise and, thereby, the limits of American power. While administrations from Nixon on eagerly pursued economic and political cooperation with China, despite its communist orientation, Cuba continued to face hardship from US-led sanctions and ostracism by the international community. Any economic help Cuba has received from US inhabitants' remittances pales in comparison to the prosperity and softening Cuba would show if it had been welcomed and not faced unrelenting hostility from the US.
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
Similarly, the reasons behind US opposition to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez have less to do with his disappointing authoritarian policies (including his disregard for a free press) than his challenge to US interests. By nationalizing Venezuela's petroleum, Chavez threatens the security of a vital resource that used to be securely assured to US corporations. While the Bush administration's concern over anti-capitalist steps which put US business at a disadvantage is valid, its organizing a coup against Chavez was immoral and unacceptable. Its failure was due to Chavez's popularity among the masses that defended his hold on power. The failed coup only fed into a vindicated, traditional suspicion among Venezuelans, and Latin Americans in general, about America's long-standing disinterest in Latin Americans' interests if they conflict with its own. It also caused understandable ire on Chavez's part toward Bush at a recent speech at a UN assembly. Whatever Chavez's faults, his hold on power is democratic and just. Furthermore, he shows a sensitivity toward the interests of lower classes and the larger public that, historically, undemocratic American puppets in the region have not. In this light, Chavez's anti-US (mostly anti-Bush) policies and rhetoric must be understood as reasonable efforts to do what's best for his country and the region. They're certainly not out of bounds when compared to similarly irrational stances US politicians often adopt with pretensions of moral superiority.
America's historical role in making Iran aggressive.
For its part, Iran's antagonism must be seen in the historical perspective of American interference and aggression toward its people since the end of WWII. As the Cold War began, US diplomats rushed to secure strategic interests in the Middle East. These included petroleum, as well as strategically-essential pathways to both enable access to it and to serve as potential routes of attack on the USSR. US policy sadly took on an intolerant streak as officials sought to control such resources themselves to deny any chance of Soviet access to them. Even governments that were neutral (not decidedly in the US-led orbit) became unacceptable. In 1953, US and British officials felt threatened by Prime Minister Muhammed Mossadeq's decision to nationalize petroleum exploited by their countries' businesses and by his willingness to be friendly to the Soviets. At Britain's urging, the CIA staged a coup which overthrew a democratic government and effectively imposed a dictatorship under the Shah, Reza Pehlavi, who was firmly pro-US interests. Iranians suffered under a brutal and corrupt regime because US officials were impatient in tolerating the slight risk a democratic Iranian government might bring to their interests.
In the Eugene Jarecki's award-winning 2005 documentary "Why We Fight," a former CIA official named Chalmers Johnson defines a concept in CIA terminology called "blowback." Referring to the Iranian hostage crisis and 9/11, he says it is "the unintended consequences of foreign operations that were deliberately kept secret from the American public, so that when the retaliation comes, the American public is not able to put it in context – to put cause and effect together so that they come up with questions like 'why do they hate us?'" Chalmers states that in the 1953 CIA report on the coup, officials wrote that they expected blowback from this operation. The Shah remained in power until discontent bubbled up in the form of blowback -- a fundamentalist, religious revolution in 1979 -- which sadly took hostages from the US embassy. While one cannot deny the danger an Islamic theocracy that has remained largely undemocratic poses to the world and especially the well-being of its people, the Revolution's actions against the US were understandably irrational. Yet, US president Ronald Reagan fed upon US nationalism to vengefully back Saddam Hussein's Iraq in an 8-year war against Iran. Just as they supported the foreign Arab Mujahideen in Afghanistan against Soviet invasion, they supplied Saddam with arms and biological weapons to use against Iranians. These are the same biological weapons the Bush administration rightly accused Saddam of barbarity in using on his own people (Kurds and Shiah), though Defense Secy Donald Rumsfeld was an envoy in the Reagan administration who worked to supply him with them in the first place.
Bush's change in Iran from potential ally to potential adversary.
Despite the US interfering in Iranians' democratic will and waging a proxy war against them, Iranians were quite pro-Western in the 1990s. They are a mostly young population that had been reacting against their regime's oppression, the had elected a moderate in President Muhammed Khatami, and they stood firm with America after 9/11; a million people took to the streets of Tehran in mourning to show solidarity for America's tragedy. Yet with much of the Islamic world sympathetic toward America's plight and unquestioned support at home, George W. Bush chose to divide the world to pursue selfish interests instead of unite it. In his needlessly aggressive "Axis of Evil" speech in January 2002, he engaged in fear-mongering by naming Iran as a threat. By invading Iraq and leaving North Korea alone, the Bush administration proved that, if the US was determined to overthrow an enemy regime anyway, having nuclear weapons was safer than not. Iranians have been understandably on edge. With the support of conservative rural segments promised better living conditions, the warmongering racist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected from a group of candidates selected by the theocracy. Rather than helping Iranian society liberalize, hawkish US pressure has recently caused the regime to make aggressive statements and engage in provocative behavior. Although the UK has failed to provide satisfactory evidence to that they were in international waters, Iran's arrest of British soldiers for trespassing into Iranian waters led to a kind of showdown. Even if Iran's claims were correct and its behavior was comparatively militaristic with how the US would have reacted, it was risky. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed mostly because the US was tied up in Iraq, and another war was out of the question. Even in Iraq, Iran seems intent on implementing ambitious designs to reshape it and the region in its favor. The morality of Iran's actions will depend on the future well-being of the Middle East's peoples, including Iraqis, and not just on serving its own interests. Yet Iran's behavior is hardly evidence that it is purely involved to thwart American interests, as US officials argue. None of this is to deny the potential for Iran to behave as morally ambiguously in the Middle East as the US has in Latin America. Though, the difference would be that the US never faced any serious threats in the Americas to justify its interference and Iran is surrounded by adversarial states. Yet, isn't that all the more reason to see Iran's meddling in Iraq to ensure a friendly neighbor for its own security at least relatable to how US officials have behaved in their sphere?
How Bush's aggression is hurting liberalization in Iran, and rallying the people behind an unpopular establishment.
Most importantly, US antagonism has given the theocracy-dominated regime an excuse to halt progressive change at home, including further democratization. It has prompted the government to viciously crack down on civil liberties, including what little freedom of the press and freedom of speech people possessed. The threat of war has weakened the ability of moderate voices to affect both the direction of government policy and civil society, as the fearful public will surely rally behind the regime. While aggressors tend to think pressure on a despised regime will lead to grassroots rebellion against it, very often, the reverse occurs, and the public rallies to those in power. Al Qaeda expected its attack on 9/11 to persuade Americans to force their government to leave the Middle East. Yet, it actually bolstered support for an incompetent and unpopular Bush presidency, paving the way for fascistic policies for the sake of security. Israel's 2006 massacre of over 1000 Lebanese in an effort to root out Hezbollah in and make them unpopular among a suffering populace backfired. Israel's actions weakened confidence in a moderate government whose pleas for international help fell on deaf ears, as the West gave carte blanche to Israel's slaughter. This only increased public support for the terrorist group as the only means fund reconstruction, and defend against and strike back at Israel. Only when a democratic society is reasonably well-off do minor sanctions and inconveniences work to change public's attitude about the ruling regime; for example, in South Africa, sanctions helped turn public opinion against apartheid. When people feel unjustifiably threatened and treated condescendingly, they blame the aggressor, not the regime, and react nationalistically by supporting policies they otherwise would not.
US politicians often say that their quarrel is not with the people of a given country but with those in power. This policy is seemingly based on the moral justification that intolerance of a morally inferior regime ultimately serves the greater good, and will lead to its destruction and free the inhabitants. However, what is best for the people as a whole is often to negotiate and work with these regimes in such a way that they are able to better the lives of their people, including the implementation of liberal policies. This has been America's approach to China. When dictatorial regimes are handled with uncompromising coercion, it is the people in less than properly democratic states – not their objectionable rulers -- who often suffer in wars and invasions. They are made to fight unwillingly as soldiers, and die as collateral damage or from sanctions as Iraqis (who had no vote to remove Saddam) did for over a decade after the Gulf War. Iranians are understandably skeptical of American claims to fight in their interests, especially upon seeing how callous US plans for regime change were toward bettering the lives of Iraqis.
"It's the culture of political campaigns, stupid."
The history of US foreign policy outside of Europe, especially in the last few years, does not provide evidence to support the often-claimed assumption that America is morally superior. As such, US political candidates should realize their country's role in inspiring some of the world's anti-Americanism. Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran's animosity toward the US is often warranted and should be appreciated as such, given the context of greater US cruelty inflicted upon their peoples than these regimes have upon Americans. What's more, "Why We Fight" observes that American culture is such that its citizens live in a state of amnesia. They are made to only comprehend events in a short-term context -- to not ask why evil occurs. They are encouraged to assume homogenous, inherent evil on the attacker's side, and to not fully know what the US may have done to contribute to the situation. I read a book in high school by Dan T. Carter, called "Race and the Conservative Counter-Revolution," in which he argues that campaigns are really the only time the general public is educated about major issues. Presidential candidates have a responsibility to not just distort issues for the short-term benefit of winning but to explore them honestly, so that the public makes informed decisions over the long-run. In this sense, the Democratic Party is missing a unique opportunity to change the dysfunctional discourse that has permitted so much bullying of the rest of the world, and provoked so much contempt.
America's failure to meet its moral standard did not begin with Bush.
This administration has been rightly criticized for its unilateral arrogance, its willingness to see only enemies where there could be friends, and to prepare for apocalyptic dangers by dealing with the world aggressively. Yet, while it has taken these tendencies to an unprecedented extreme, these characteristics are not new among US officials. This thread of behavior runs through the history of US foreign policy since the start of the Cold War, perhaps earlier, and it has created long-standing, mostly justified grievances among the peoples of the world. Bill Clinton is frequently considered the anti-Bush, and this is true in many ways. Still, it was Clinton who continued the legacy of disproportionately upholding Saddam Hussein as a danger to the US to appear tough and presidential. To distract from his failures, such as the Lewinski scandal, he bombed Iraq every so often, killing people who were not responsible for Saddam's hold on power. According to Scott Ritter, it was Clinton who illegally allowed the CIA to infiltrate the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq, which caused Saddam to kick inspectors out in the late 1990s. Nonetheless, this propaganda (some from deceitful Iraqi exiles) had the effect of brainwashing the American people in exaggerating the threat Iraq represented. So, when Bush purported the Iraqi government had ties to Al Qaeda, when Saddam was actually their opponent and quite secular in his policies (including women's role in society), it didn't take much to persuade Americans of the need to remove him. They had already been conditioned to think of him as the source of all evil, and as an intolerably eminent threat to the US.
It was also Bill Clinton who signed into law "extraordinary rendition," allowing the torture of many innocent citizens of foreign origin, based not on strong evidence but suspicion. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) website explains the term: "Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards."
America has to be more understanding in its foreign policy for peace.
If America is to live up to the moral superiority it has proclaimed in the last century as the basis of its right to lead the world, it must lead by example. If the Democratic Party is to break with not only recent history, its country's past as well, it must approach the world with more understanding and patience. In the final analysis, it is not only in America's moral responsibility as the richest, most powerful nation, but also in its long-term practical interests to find peace with these opponents. As stated in the Baker-Hamilton report, without Iran's cooperation, stabilizing Iraq will be impossible. This is not to argue that America's opponents are inherently virtuous, but that they are just as complex as Americans – as capable of kindness and cruelty. They deserve the same respect through patience and comprehension of their perspective that the US has long expected others to allow it, despite its many blunders. I keep losing faith in supposedly brilliant, insightful politicians bringing about mutual understanding. Bill Clinton showed tremendous grasp of the plight of minorities and the poor, but showed little interest in prioritizing their needs, let alone those of the Third World, especially the Middle East. There is little hope when Barack Obama -- touted as liberal and capable of bringing a new sensitivity toward the rest of the world's problems in his leadership – adopts the same conservative position as many leaders before him. If America's leaders are either ignorant of, or unwilling to admit, the immorality of actions the US has carried out that have contributed to tensions, then all is lost. Unless America changes the course of its foreign policy, there can be no peace.
What does all this political talk have to do with this mediocre 4400 episode?
In this seemingly convoluted but carefully-explained way, P.J.'s role in "No Exit" spoke to important themes about the need for understanding "the other" that are essential to building a better world. The friction between Tom and Jordan is a political metaphor for the strain between the West, specifically the US, and the non-European world. It is also an allegory for the issues concerning conflict between the state and reasonable activists/terrorists. P.J.'s role illuminated the frustration among moderate members of the public, like myself, who feel unable to get either side in the War on Terror and other conflicts to find agreement. We wish for both sides, including their most fervent supporters, to at least see their mistakes and acknowledge the fair grievances of "the other" in creating this conflict. The drama of The 4400 is very much revealing of the essential political themes required to comprehend the dilemmas of the real world. If only the execution of these themes had led to a better story.
7.2 out of 10
(I should emphasize the only the rarest of shows get 10 -- only the absolute best episodes of The X-Files ("Talitha Cumi", "Paper Hearts", "Redux II", etc.), Battlestar Galactica ("Pegasus","Lay Down Your Burdens", "Occupation"/"Precipice") and Deep Space Nine ("In the Pale Moonlight"). I would give the best story of The 4400 to date, "Terrible Swift Sword"/"Fifty Fifty," around 9.0, and I really loved that.)
My review of: "No Exit" by Adam Levy
Nowadays when I watch an episode, I try to not look at who the writer is, so that, based on the expectations I have of given writers, I'm not prejudiced into touting something as great or ineffective before it has finished. No offense to Adam Levy, since he worked on "The Gospel According to Jordan Collier," but, after watching the episode, I was crossing my fingers hoping Ira Steven Behr had not written this poorly-executed effort at a "bottle show" – which, according to the Writers' Blog, is an attempt to save the network money. I absolutely loved this episode's emotionally-intimate moments, especially between long-established characters. However, what could have been elaborated upon for a powerful character piece was ruined by a seeming identity crisis in choosing the focus of the show – or, rather, in deciding to divide the focus between a worthwhile character exploration and an uninteresting action dynamic to keep us entertained. I presumed the writers understood the focus should be "the characters, stupid." Instead, half the story time was misguidedly redirected toward satisfying the standalone plot mechanics of a dull suspense thriller. Still, as I'll comment toward the end of my review, P.J.'s 4400 ability to bring together adversaries in a psychic game of cooperation provided interesting commentary on the feelings of powerless citizens toward world leaders, especially in the dominant West, who refuse to admit fault or negotiate with opponents by dismissing them as irredeemable. P.J.'s yearning for understanding among the most pivotal players in the struggle between 4400s and non-4400s, and his ability's use in the service of this goal captured the spirit of what the concerned and voiceless in our world only wish they could do to bring peace.
Why such standalones are a waste of the series' potential.
I checked a spring 2007 interview with our man Behr on tv.ign.com and this episode (Number 8) was the annual, experimental "palette cleanser" to which he referred, just as was last year's "Blink." However, I was really hoping for the kind of innovative and dramatically-powerful story he delivered in Season 2 around the same time of year with "Life Interrupted" or even last year when he co-wrote "The Home Front." Ira Behr has overseen successful "bottle" shows, such as DS9's "Starship Down." I hopefully expect he's saving all his best work for the second half of the season, after a disappointing premiere. Yet, such a decision confuses me, since there are so few episodes a year, and much of the otherwise fascinating and innovative continuing story has sometimes felt more disjointed (and perhaps more rushed) than in past years. Instead of dissatisfying "Touched by an Angel"-style drama of standalone main plots, I feel it would have been better to further detail the continuing story elements (especially Kyle, Jordan, and Shawn's journeys) of each episode to fully fill that episode. I just don't buy the argument that, in order to win over new fans, it is better to have a mediocre standalone plot that takes away time from the continuing story rather than a well-executed and textured fully-serialized set of episodes. I've introduced myself to serialized shows part-way, but instead of being dissuaded by the complexity, I was won over by the engaging drama. Simply put, I don't see how compromising the strengths of the show is going to win over new viewers; it will likely just lose older partial fans of the show when they do check it out. The standalone story elements could have sufficed but the writing quality needed much more work to be worthy of the third of the season that they have consumed so far; even so-called mythology episodes like "Try the Pie" with detracting standalone elements and somewhat lesser standalone townspeople characters are obviously far less engaging than full-on mythology episodes like "Till We Have Built Jerusalem."
Similarities with "Blink."
Season 3's "Blink" made the same mistakes as this episode. It provided an opportunity to understand more about Diana and Tom's past and two of their deeply psychologically-affecting relationships. The drama provided by each lead's interaction with hallucinations of Diana's ex-fiancé and especially Tom's father allowed for some realistic and relatable aspects of the characters to be exposed. Nevertheless, the writing staff needlessly balanced the character drama with ineffective "excitement." They focused half the story on the silly detective work of finding out how this happened to our heroes and the uninteresting process of catching the cookie distributor. This plot-driven exercise only detracted from what could have been a great character piece. This was a missed opportunity to know so much more about Tom and Diana or at least explore more dialogue and interesting moments with their past loved ones. In "No Exit," the dramatically-intimate prospects were perhaps greater and potentially more effective by involving more of the main cast. Yet, partly for those reasons, the continual shift toward plot-driven jeopardy was even more of a dramatic mood killer this time around. P.J's game wasn't nearly as interesting as the apparently incidental character moments that came between the supposed "meat" of the episode – the action.
Problems with subplot.
I sympathized with the set-up needed to bring all these characters face-to-face so they could have great drama. However, too much story effort was put into explaining this set-up and making it (and P.J.) a character in itself that exploration of the existing characters was far less deep than it could have been. The dramatic point of the episode was lost in self-consciously trying to make it superficially entertaining, and neither goal was well achieved. Even if the characters reacted believably, the whole suspense dynamic felt dull, cheap or silly with a living NTAC building come to life; this kind of situation was more expertly done on Star Trek: DS9's "Civil Defense" in which the station's security protocols threatened the crew; here, even if viewers knew it was a dream, the same threats just felt hokey, especially the sliding doors and ventilation system machinations. While some sort of basic plot device could have provided the backdrop for getting Collier's group and NTAC's staff to work together, it should have been simplified, so we had more time to give the wonderful character interactions their full due.
Presentation and finer details were lacking.
I'm not sure if the director was to blame, but there was something off about the tone of how the characters met (except perhaps Shawn, Isabelle and Kyle) that felt boring and started off the show poorly. Some of the acting or perhaps how such acting was captured on camera (Isabelle's reaction to Shawn's "death", Maia's screaming, etc) or even scripted was also less than stellar. This was strange because the show has a very talented cast. One notable exception was the way Meghan Doyle fiddled and reacted to being shocked, which seemed quite embarrassingly real.
Original character dynamics that made the story interesting.
There were minor elements related to the boring subplot that deserve praise for being refreshing and unique. Diana, one of the heroes, was shown up by a minor supporting character for her ineffectual idea of protecting themselves from Jordan's side by barricading the room. A nice touch was in having Jordan's terrorist group more willing to cooperate than the NTAC staff. Jordan was willing to share the risk in helping Tom escort P.J. to end the game early, Kyle and Isabelle welcomed Maia's help, and Isabelle pressed a distrustful Diana to cooperate. I also appreciated that working together produced some mutual respect between Tom and Jordan, but was not some magical breakthrough in politically uniting the two. The complexity to this new level in their relationship was conveyed in Jordan's polite but insistent request to Tom that one of them end their phone conversation, since they both expressed the limits to their rapprochement.
Severity of the justice system toward P.J.'s crime.
While P.J.'s success in even momentarily breaking barriers between Tom and Jordan was not lost on the audience, an interesting choice was made to have Marco and especially Diana unimpressed by what P.J. had accomplished. They seemed unmoved by his pleas for the need for understanding and unsympathetic to his plight in being arrested for doing some good. It's interesting to note the very realistic hypocrisy in Diana's more loving conduct when her sister committed the same crime. In this way, viewers can see the inherent cruelty in a rigid justice system that sometimes fails to take into account the context of a person's crime. From unfair treatment of the poor to enemy combatants in Abu Ghraib, similar black or white justice is meted out in the US and the larger world. In P.J.'s sentencing, one sees the harsh treatment of ordinary folks who inject themselves, either out of ideological persuasion by Jordan's message, or fear of changing power dynamics that would put them at a disadvantage if they didn't.
Intimate character moments.
The best dramatic use of the characters did not come from suspicious, fearful reactions to the tense set-up, but from softer, personal moments generated by long-standing personal and/or political grievances over past and existing relationships. However, while the drama derived from characters trying to get to know each other in a new light was a neat idea, perhaps it was less interestingly and convincingly handled. When she wasn't screaming in fear, Maia had an interesting role in confronting Diana and Marco about their awkward distancing – much to Diana's nicely-acted annoyance. This allowed some good discussion about their feelings and their desire to preserve their friendship; this is the kind of thing fans have been waiting to watch. I'm still unsure about Meghan Doyle as a quality character or at least her use in the show. Moments between she and Tom, while believable, still feel slightly contrived and uninteresting, especially the last scene in which Tom hugs her. In contrast, Kyle and Isabelle's relationship has been better handled such that no one can surely predict whether they will get together romantically; avoiding that kind of fatalism makes their relationship more believable. In any case, I liked Meghan and Tom's discussion of how he keeps moving forward by concentrating on the task directly ahead of him. It felt true. Tom's conversation with Kyle was another well-written moment allowing each to believably express his perspective about Kyle's terrorist role this season. Through this exchange we understand each one's personal and political differences. A nice touch was how Shawn's death slightly affected Kyle. It would have been cliché to have it shake his beliefs completely and have him turn on his mission. The writers chose a more realistic approach in making Kyle adopt the mindset of terrorists who witness deaths all the time in their search for a better world. Kyle's reaction was such that he only questioned slightly his willingness to risk lives to make the prophesy and Jordan's vision a reality. People's judgment is often slow to change and it's appropriate that the writers realized this.
Best of all the character moments were the interactions concerning Shawn. There were so few moments, but they all felt meaningful and deserved to be mined for all they were worth instead of having him implausibly sacrificed for some suspense dynamic. Shawn waking up next to Isabelle was a chilling touch. I loved his reaction (evident in his body language and tone) to Jordan's group as well as how Kyle pointed out how his relationship with Jordan was more equal than Shawn's had been. It felt convincingly true because all the episodes this year showed this, but I hadn't yet realized it; I wonder if Shawn felt some jealousy toward Kyle over this. Not everything was great; the distinction between Jordan as someone who "shoots first and asks questions later" and Shawn's more peaceful approach was a bit obvious, but acceptable. Perhaps Shawn's "death" did provide some dramatic use when Tom and Jordan discussed his importance to them; I had never heard the characters talk about their history with him that way; it was great to see, but also far too brief.
The most politically-insightful and relatable dramatic moment.
Perhaps the nicest moment in the entire episode involved Tom arguing with Jordan over each one's responsibility for the world-wide political turmoil. The writers insightfully gave each side a valid perspective. Both were able to point out how each one's inflexibility had led to his (adoptive) son's estrangement. Tom blamed their present predicament on Jordan's irresponsible distribution of promicin to the masses. He argued was causing a mounting death toll and unleashing dangerous abilities among P-positives, including P.J.. Jordan convincingly retorted that the government's counterrevolutionary tactics of heavy-handed criminalization and fear-mongering only forced "the gifted" into hiding and prevented them learning to use their abilities safely and constructively. This exchange reminded me of the war on drugs debate. Proponents of legalization sometimes claim the violence and enrichment to drug cartels and mafias come from government criminalization, which makes drugs less accessible and drives up the profit to those who provide it. Careful regulation, they say, might make the problem more manageable. The difference between the War on Drugs and the War on Promicin is that I'm opposed to dangers legalization of drugs might bring in making its availability easier, especially to minors; while 1930s prohibition didn't halt alcoholism, it did lessen it, and making something legal tends to make it more acceptable, when perhaps it shouldn't be. In the case of Jordan's distribution of promicin, such actions seem carried out with the best intentions of saving humanity to prevent the accumulation of power among a few.
Political parallels in how states' counterrevolutionary behavior can worsen things: How America's reaction to Al Qaeda only strengthened its cause.
In any case, Jordan's response reflects a politically-astute and historically-accurate observation by the writers that state reactions to perceived threats sometimes increases the power and likelihood of such threats. For example, the Bush administration's reaction to 9/11 by invading Iraq involved a misunderstanding and intentional miscommunication to the Western public of the nature and causes of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Despite the good intentions of some in the US military, the war and occupation have been carried out with criminally immoral carelessness. Members of the administration have failed to gain Iraqis' trust in refusing to swear off permanent US bases and, most importantly, potential US profit from Iraq's oil reserves. Using the rhetoric of free enterprise, Dick Cheney and others pushed to ensure that American business can profit from Iraq's vast oil reserves, instead of stipulating that petroleum will only be used for the benefit of Iraqis. This sends the message that America is there primarily for its own interests and not to help Iraqi society. US incompetence also contextualizes the reasons for the distrust of Iraqi insurgents (which have different goals than Al Qaeda-type groups) toward America's presence in their homeland. As more innocent Iraqis are mistreated or have their loved ones killed or maimed (as collateral damage in perilous warfare Americans would never risk among their own), they are more likely to join the insurgency. The line between ally and opponent in Iraq is related to the experience of the occupation.
Consequently, the worldwide popularity – and, therefore, the power -- of Al Qaeda-type groups among desperate and misguided Muslim youth has indisputably grown to a far greater threat to not only Western, but human civilizations than had Iraq been left alone. None of this argument takes away from the responsibility for the racist kind of colonial nationalism Al Qaeda-type groups preach. However, it recognizes the West's part in inflaming that unjustifiable ideology. It is important to acknowledge the appeal of some of Al Qaeda's direct goals of ending the Israeli occupation and a militarized US presence that buttresses repressive regimes in the Middle East to protect petroleum interests. This in no way excuses Al Qaeda-type groups' actions or sees as rational their more honor-based, selfish notion of Islamic identity – an identity based more on taking offense when foreigners harm Muslims than when fellow Muslims commit wrong. However, a similar irrational nationalism occurs among many cultures, the US included, in which notions of moral superiority are selectively sensitive toward certain injustices in the world, but not others.
Political parallels with concerns over uncompromising factions: the real Tom Baldwin and Jordan Collier. The most admirable aspect of the P-positive standalone subplot was its poignant relevance to the present political climate. The idea of an ordinary person getting world leaders – let alone, pivotal players in the future's outcome – to reconcile their differences and allow for peace is relatable and unique in its own way. P.J. demonstrated emotionally-realistic reactions to political tensions we see in the real world that were mirrored on the show by various sides being unwilling to understand one another.
In the last few weeks, certain issues in the Democratic Party's presidential campaign have come to the fore regarding how the US should treat adversarial regimes, especially Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. Democratic Party discourse showed promise when candidates Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama had, at different times, expressed a desire to negotiate openly and at the highest levels with such regimes to contrast themselves with Bush's haughtiness. Disappointingly, they have been quick to recant or modify such positions, in recent weeks. This may be an attempt to appeal to supposedly moderate, nationalist values. Such intolerance toward opposing regimes has been typical of most US administrations. It is based on the supposition that America is morally superior, and has not done anything to deserve their opposition. There is a morally false assumption that these regimes are in the wrong and must compromise first if the US is to risk its status and show them equal respect. Yet the historical record shows a different picture in which these regimes' hostility has – at least, partly -- been brought about by American abuse and interference in the lives and freedom of their peoples. Add to this the fact that these countries are substantially poorer, weaker and more prone to suffering the effects of a global system skewed toward American interests, and the wrongs committed by them are more understandable. Their mistakes and aggressiveness should not be simplistically used as evidence of inherent evil in refusing to surrender to American wants. There are rational reasons for distrust of American power.
US policy toward Latin America.
Despite proclamations that America eschewed the colonialism practiced by European powers, the historical facts show this to be a hypocritical reading of America's approach toward Latin America. With the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt corollary, the US claimed to protect Latin Americans from European colonialism by declaring the Americas in its sphere of interest; instead of serving Latin American interests, however, they implemented interfering and controlling policies to serve US interests. When it was not acting colonially in directly seizing land from places like Mexico (and the Philippines in the Pacific), it practiced neocolonialism to allow US citizens, in the spirit of individualist capitalism, (not directly the state) a free hand in the region to directly benefit American society. In this way, it demanded economic and political access in the affairs of Latin American nations, so that US business could profit at the expense of mostly poorer groups, especially Indios. During the Cold War, the US employed the rhetoric of fighting Communism to ensure friendly regimes serving US economic and political interests. This often meant supporting brutal, dictatorial regimes like Augusto Pinochet in Chile. Oftentimes, it meant thwarting the people's will, as the CIA did in funding a military coup to overthrow Guatemala's democratically-elected, leftist government of Jacobo Arbenz when he threatened the presence of the United Fruit Company.
Castro's Cuba.
In the case of Cuba, the US-supported General Fulgencio Batista's oppressive means to allow whites to prosper and Americans to use the country as their own resort. Fidel Castro may have used regrettably violent and anti-democratic means to attain and hold onto power, but he has largely worked in the interests of helping the poor reach a living standard unknown in the region. In contrast to Bush's callous neglect for both saving thousands in the wake of Hurricaine Katrina or helping survivors in the aftermath, Castro ensured there were no mass casualties, as his government mobilized its resources to save lives. John Kennedy's repeated attempts to assassinate Castro and overthrow his regime with the Bay of Pigs attack of 1961 hardly helped inspire trust in America's moral superiority. It led to Castro's greater closeness with the Soviet Union for aid and protection in the form of missile installation. It was only at the urging of Nikita Khrushchev for compromise that a solution was found to the Cuban Missile Crisis. In exchange for removing missiles from Cuba, Kennedy agreed to accept Castro's regime and to remove US missiles pointed at the USSR from Turkey – only, at a later date, to avoid publicly acknowledging a compromise and, thereby, the limits of American power. While administrations from Nixon on eagerly pursued economic and political cooperation with China, despite its communist orientation, Cuba continued to face hardship from US-led sanctions and ostracism by the international community. Any economic help Cuba has received from US inhabitants' remittances pales in comparison to the prosperity and softening Cuba would show if it had been welcomed and not faced unrelenting hostility from the US.
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez.
Similarly, the reasons behind US opposition to Venezuela's Hugo Chavez have less to do with his disappointing authoritarian policies (including his disregard for a free press) than his challenge to US interests. By nationalizing Venezuela's petroleum, Chavez threatens the security of a vital resource that used to be securely assured to US corporations. While the Bush administration's concern over anti-capitalist steps which put US business at a disadvantage is valid, its organizing a coup against Chavez was immoral and unacceptable. Its failure was due to Chavez's popularity among the masses that defended his hold on power. The failed coup only fed into a vindicated, traditional suspicion among Venezuelans, and Latin Americans in general, about America's long-standing disinterest in Latin Americans' interests if they conflict with its own. It also caused understandable ire on Chavez's part toward Bush at a recent speech at a UN assembly. Whatever Chavez's faults, his hold on power is democratic and just. Furthermore, he shows a sensitivity toward the interests of lower classes and the larger public that, historically, undemocratic American puppets in the region have not. In this light, Chavez's anti-US (mostly anti-Bush) policies and rhetoric must be understood as reasonable efforts to do what's best for his country and the region. They're certainly not out of bounds when compared to similarly irrational stances US politicians often adopt with pretensions of moral superiority.
America's historical role in making Iran aggressive.
For its part, Iran's antagonism must be seen in the historical perspective of American interference and aggression toward its people since the end of WWII. As the Cold War began, US diplomats rushed to secure strategic interests in the Middle East. These included petroleum, as well as strategically-essential pathways to both enable access to it and to serve as potential routes of attack on the USSR. US policy sadly took on an intolerant streak as officials sought to control such resources themselves to deny any chance of Soviet access to them. Even governments that were neutral (not decidedly in the US-led orbit) became unacceptable. In 1953, US and British officials felt threatened by Prime Minister Muhammed Mossadeq's decision to nationalize petroleum exploited by their countries' businesses and by his willingness to be friendly to the Soviets. At Britain's urging, the CIA staged a coup which overthrew a democratic government and effectively imposed a dictatorship under the Shah, Reza Pehlavi, who was firmly pro-US interests. Iranians suffered under a brutal and corrupt regime because US officials were impatient in tolerating the slight risk a democratic Iranian government might bring to their interests.
In the Eugene Jarecki's award-winning 2005 documentary "Why We Fight," a former CIA official named Chalmers Johnson defines a concept in CIA terminology called "blowback." Referring to the Iranian hostage crisis and 9/11, he says it is "the unintended consequences of foreign operations that were deliberately kept secret from the American public, so that when the retaliation comes, the American public is not able to put it in context – to put cause and effect together so that they come up with questions like 'why do they hate us?'" Chalmers states that in the 1953 CIA report on the coup, officials wrote that they expected blowback from this operation. The Shah remained in power until discontent bubbled up in the form of blowback -- a fundamentalist, religious revolution in 1979 -- which sadly took hostages from the US embassy. While one cannot deny the danger an Islamic theocracy that has remained largely undemocratic poses to the world and especially the well-being of its people, the Revolution's actions against the US were understandably irrational. Yet, US president Ronald Reagan fed upon US nationalism to vengefully back Saddam Hussein's Iraq in an 8-year war against Iran. Just as they supported the foreign Arab Mujahideen in Afghanistan against Soviet invasion, they supplied Saddam with arms and biological weapons to use against Iranians. These are the same biological weapons the Bush administration rightly accused Saddam of barbarity in using on his own people (Kurds and Shiah), though Defense Secy Donald Rumsfeld was an envoy in the Reagan administration who worked to supply him with them in the first place.
Bush's change in Iran from potential ally to potential adversary.
Despite the US interfering in Iranians' democratic will and waging a proxy war against them, Iranians were quite pro-Western in the 1990s. They are a mostly young population that had been reacting against their regime's oppression, the had elected a moderate in President Muhammed Khatami, and they stood firm with America after 9/11; a million people took to the streets of Tehran in mourning to show solidarity for America's tragedy. Yet with much of the Islamic world sympathetic toward America's plight and unquestioned support at home, George W. Bush chose to divide the world to pursue selfish interests instead of unite it. In his needlessly aggressive "Axis of Evil" speech in January 2002, he engaged in fear-mongering by naming Iran as a threat. By invading Iraq and leaving North Korea alone, the Bush administration proved that, if the US was determined to overthrow an enemy regime anyway, having nuclear weapons was safer than not. Iranians have been understandably on edge. With the support of conservative rural segments promised better living conditions, the warmongering racist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected from a group of candidates selected by the theocracy. Rather than helping Iranian society liberalize, hawkish US pressure has recently caused the regime to make aggressive statements and engage in provocative behavior. Although the UK has failed to provide satisfactory evidence to that they were in international waters, Iran's arrest of British soldiers for trespassing into Iranian waters led to a kind of showdown. Even if Iran's claims were correct and its behavior was comparatively militaristic with how the US would have reacted, it was risky. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed mostly because the US was tied up in Iraq, and another war was out of the question. Even in Iraq, Iran seems intent on implementing ambitious designs to reshape it and the region in its favor. The morality of Iran's actions will depend on the future well-being of the Middle East's peoples, including Iraqis, and not just on serving its own interests. Yet Iran's behavior is hardly evidence that it is purely involved to thwart American interests, as US officials argue. None of this is to deny the potential for Iran to behave as morally ambiguously in the Middle East as the US has in Latin America. Though, the difference would be that the US never faced any serious threats in the Americas to justify its interference and Iran is surrounded by adversarial states. Yet, isn't that all the more reason to see Iran's meddling in Iraq to ensure a friendly neighbor for its own security at least relatable to how US officials have behaved in their sphere?
How Bush's aggression is hurting liberalization in Iran, and rallying the people behind an unpopular establishment.
Most importantly, US antagonism has given the theocracy-dominated regime an excuse to halt progressive change at home, including further democratization. It has prompted the government to viciously crack down on civil liberties, including what little freedom of the press and freedom of speech people possessed. The threat of war has weakened the ability of moderate voices to affect both the direction of government policy and civil society, as the fearful public will surely rally behind the regime. While aggressors tend to think pressure on a despised regime will lead to grassroots rebellion against it, very often, the reverse occurs, and the public rallies to those in power. Al Qaeda expected its attack on 9/11 to persuade Americans to force their government to leave the Middle East. Yet, it actually bolstered support for an incompetent and unpopular Bush presidency, paving the way for fascistic policies for the sake of security. Israel's 2006 massacre of over 1000 Lebanese in an effort to root out Hezbollah in and make them unpopular among a suffering populace backfired. Israel's actions weakened confidence in a moderate government whose pleas for international help fell on deaf ears, as the West gave carte blanche to Israel's slaughter. This only increased public support for the terrorist group as the only means fund reconstruction, and defend against and strike back at Israel. Only when a democratic society is reasonably well-off do minor sanctions and inconveniences work to change public's attitude about the ruling regime; for example, in South Africa, sanctions helped turn public opinion against apartheid. When people feel unjustifiably threatened and treated condescendingly, they blame the aggressor, not the regime, and react nationalistically by supporting policies they otherwise would not.
US politicians often say that their quarrel is not with the people of a given country but with those in power. This policy is seemingly based on the moral justification that intolerance of a morally inferior regime ultimately serves the greater good, and will lead to its destruction and free the inhabitants. However, what is best for the people as a whole is often to negotiate and work with these regimes in such a way that they are able to better the lives of their people, including the implementation of liberal policies. This has been America's approach to China. When dictatorial regimes are handled with uncompromising coercion, it is the people in less than properly democratic states – not their objectionable rulers -- who often suffer in wars and invasions. They are made to fight unwillingly as soldiers, and die as collateral damage or from sanctions as Iraqis (who had no vote to remove Saddam) did for over a decade after the Gulf War. Iranians are understandably skeptical of American claims to fight in their interests, especially upon seeing how callous US plans for regime change were toward bettering the lives of Iraqis.
"It's the culture of political campaigns, stupid."
The history of US foreign policy outside of Europe, especially in the last few years, does not provide evidence to support the often-claimed assumption that America is morally superior. As such, US political candidates should realize their country's role in inspiring some of the world's anti-Americanism. Cuba, Venezuela, and Iran's animosity toward the US is often warranted and should be appreciated as such, given the context of greater US cruelty inflicted upon their peoples than these regimes have upon Americans. What's more, "Why We Fight" observes that American culture is such that its citizens live in a state of amnesia. They are made to only comprehend events in a short-term context -- to not ask why evil occurs. They are encouraged to assume homogenous, inherent evil on the attacker's side, and to not fully know what the US may have done to contribute to the situation. I read a book in high school by Dan T. Carter, called "Race and the Conservative Counter-Revolution," in which he argues that campaigns are really the only time the general public is educated about major issues. Presidential candidates have a responsibility to not just distort issues for the short-term benefit of winning but to explore them honestly, so that the public makes informed decisions over the long-run. In this sense, the Democratic Party is missing a unique opportunity to change the dysfunctional discourse that has permitted so much bullying of the rest of the world, and provoked so much contempt.
America's failure to meet its moral standard did not begin with Bush.
This administration has been rightly criticized for its unilateral arrogance, its willingness to see only enemies where there could be friends, and to prepare for apocalyptic dangers by dealing with the world aggressively. Yet, while it has taken these tendencies to an unprecedented extreme, these characteristics are not new among US officials. This thread of behavior runs through the history of US foreign policy since the start of the Cold War, perhaps earlier, and it has created long-standing, mostly justified grievances among the peoples of the world. Bill Clinton is frequently considered the anti-Bush, and this is true in many ways. Still, it was Clinton who continued the legacy of disproportionately upholding Saddam Hussein as a danger to the US to appear tough and presidential. To distract from his failures, such as the Lewinski scandal, he bombed Iraq every so often, killing people who were not responsible for Saddam's hold on power. According to Scott Ritter, it was Clinton who illegally allowed the CIA to infiltrate the UN weapons inspection team in Iraq, which caused Saddam to kick inspectors out in the late 1990s. Nonetheless, this propaganda (some from deceitful Iraqi exiles) had the effect of brainwashing the American people in exaggerating the threat Iraq represented. So, when Bush purported the Iraqi government had ties to Al Qaeda, when Saddam was actually their opponent and quite secular in his policies (including women's role in society), it didn't take much to persuade Americans of the need to remove him. They had already been conditioned to think of him as the source of all evil, and as an intolerably eminent threat to the US.
It was also Bill Clinton who signed into law "extraordinary rendition," allowing the torture of many innocent citizens of foreign origin, based not on strong evidence but suspicion. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) website explains the term: "Beginning in the early 1990s and continuing to this day, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with other U.S. government agencies, has utilized an intelligence-gathering program involving the transfer of foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism to detention and interrogation in countries where -- in the CIA's view -- federal and international legal safeguards do not apply. Suspects are detained and interrogated either by U.S. personnel at U.S.-run detention facilities outside U.S. sovereign territory or, alternatively, are handed over to the custody of foreign agents for interrogation. In both instances, interrogation methods are employed that do not comport with federal and internationally recognized standards."
America has to be more understanding in its foreign policy for peace.
If America is to live up to the moral superiority it has proclaimed in the last century as the basis of its right to lead the world, it must lead by example. If the Democratic Party is to break with not only recent history, its country's past as well, it must approach the world with more understanding and patience. In the final analysis, it is not only in America's moral responsibility as the richest, most powerful nation, but also in its long-term practical interests to find peace with these opponents. As stated in the Baker-Hamilton report, without Iran's cooperation, stabilizing Iraq will be impossible. This is not to argue that America's opponents are inherently virtuous, but that they are just as complex as Americans – as capable of kindness and cruelty. They deserve the same respect through patience and comprehension of their perspective that the US has long expected others to allow it, despite its many blunders. I keep losing faith in supposedly brilliant, insightful politicians bringing about mutual understanding. Bill Clinton showed tremendous grasp of the plight of minorities and the poor, but showed little interest in prioritizing their needs, let alone those of the Third World, especially the Middle East. There is little hope when Barack Obama -- touted as liberal and capable of bringing a new sensitivity toward the rest of the world's problems in his leadership – adopts the same conservative position as many leaders before him. If America's leaders are either ignorant of, or unwilling to admit, the immorality of actions the US has carried out that have contributed to tensions, then all is lost. Unless America changes the course of its foreign policy, there can be no peace.
What does all this political talk have to do with this mediocre 4400 episode?
In this seemingly convoluted but carefully-explained way, P.J.'s role in "No Exit" spoke to important themes about the need for understanding "the other" that are essential to building a better world. The friction between Tom and Jordan is a political metaphor for the strain between the West, specifically the US, and the non-European world. It is also an allegory for the issues concerning conflict between the state and reasonable activists/terrorists. P.J.'s role illuminated the frustration among moderate members of the public, like myself, who feel unable to get either side in the War on Terror and other conflicts to find agreement. We wish for both sides, including their most fervent supporters, to at least see their mistakes and acknowledge the fair grievances of "the other" in creating this conflict. The drama of The 4400 is very much revealing of the essential political themes required to comprehend the dilemmas of the real world. If only the execution of these themes had led to a better story.
7.2 out of 10
(I should emphasize the only the rarest of shows get 10 -- only the absolute best episodes of The X-Files ("Talitha Cumi", "Paper Hearts", "Redux II", etc.), Battlestar Galactica ("Pegasus","Lay Down Your Burdens", "Occupation"/"Precipice") and Deep Space Nine ("In the Pale Moonlight"). I would give the best story of The 4400 to date, "Terrible Swift Sword"/"Fifty Fifty," around 9.0, and I really loved that.)
Last edited:
A 28 paragraph review of a single episode? And 13 of those paragraphs are devoted to the parallels in US politics??
I think you're taking this show just a wee bit too seriously.
I think you're taking this show just a wee bit too seriously.
Last edited:
Actually I'm not because the show is VERY political. It just doesn't always come out in a single episode but across many. I'm trying to get people, especially on the official site, to see the themes of what the writers are trying to say. There are very pro-Bush people who are watching the show and supporting a terrorist character like Jordan Collier who defies the government and inspires fanatical upheaval of the entire society. But they just don't see the parallels and just end up voting for Bush anyway, when, if they understood the common principles they agree with are found in reality, they might rethink things.Diemen said:
Same with BSG, which is much better at political commentary, but you have viewers of that show totally saddened at humans being unable to see the cylons' perspective and how different they all are, but then they never question the way Americans are encouraged to hate Arabs/Muslims and assume stereotypes about them unconsciously. They watch the show and pull for the humans committing suicide bombings against the cylons but then are shocked when Palestinians do the same in Israel. The writers, I think, would be all for what I'm trying to do.
Last edited:
LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
I've been watching the 4400 this summer and I still prefer Heroes.
I don't see how you can compare the two, one's a comic book-style action/sci-fi series, the other is an X-Files-esque drama with some political connections. Hell, there were better political allegories in the original series of Star Trek.
Heroes is entertaining, this show isn't, at least for me, but I'll leave it to your own devices.
I don't see how you can compare the two, one's a comic book-style action/sci-fi series, the other is an X-Files-esque drama with some political connections. Hell, there were better political allegories in the original series of Star Trek.
Heroes is entertaining, this show isn't, at least for me, but I'll leave it to your own devices.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Sticky
