"Bryon Daly" painstakingly wrote why I am wrong about this episode ;-)
> >From: "G. D. Akin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >As most of you know, I've been catching up on what you have all raved > >about, > >Babylon 5. I kept everyone up to date with an almost episode by episode > >commentary on season 1 and, as you told me, season 2 is even better. I > >have > >the season finale to watch later today (then a wait until next month for > >season 3 to come out.) > > What did you think of "Confessions and Lamentations"? That's probably my > favorite ep of the season. Good episode but my I'd be hard pressed to pick "A" favorite. If you force me to choose, its a tie between "The Coming of Shadows" and "In the Shadow of Z'Ha'Dum." > > >Season 2, while it took me awhile to get used to Sheridan (I liked > >Sinclcair), has gripped me from episode 1. However, last night I watched > >"Comes the Inquisitor". I watched in astonishment as this horrible, > >pointless episode trudged through the torture of Ambassador Delenn at the > >hand of a sadist who was ostensibley there to see if the Vorlons could > >trust > >her. > > > >BS flag is about halfway up the staff now and ascending rapidly. > > I was initially pretty turned off, too, when I first watched this episode. > But on further viewings, and reading what JMS had to say, it's obvious that > there's a lot more going on and being said here than what I picked up on my > initial viewing. Check out > http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countries/us/guide/043.html for extnsive > analysis and commentary by JMS on this episode. > > >The Vorlons are portrayed as almost omniscinet and omnipotent, as well as > >almost non-knowable and non-understandable. And they have to resort to > >this! > > I don't think the Vorlons were portrayed as almost omniscient. Kosh was > certainly fooled by his attempted murderer in the series pilot. They are > incredibly advanced and powerful, but not omniscient or omnipotent. Future > episodes will also bear this out. > > As to why they'd use the Inquisitor over some sci-fi plot device - the point > was to put her *motives* and determination to the test. They wanted to know > *why* she was doing this - were her personal motivations the correct ones? > > Could there have been some "nicer" way or hi-tech way to so this? Perhaps, > but maybe the fact that they didn't choose such a way says something about > the Vorlons... > > Some comments from JMS on this point (collected and rearranged from the link > above): > > "The pain is necessary because it's easy to consider laying down one's life > intellectually; when the pain and the agony bring it home, it's no longer as > easy. > > And there *is* no correct answer to "Who are you?" The only real answer is > no answer, because as soon as you apply someone's term for it, you have > limited yourself, defined yourself in someone else's terms. > > Doing things in a refined, gentle, intellectual manner is the sort of thing > Delenn's used to, she can handle that easily...the goal of Sebastian was to > try and *break* her. That's not intended to be done gently. You don't break > someone over a cup of tea discussing philosophical concepts and the nature > of personal identity. It's also not terribly dramatic to watch. > > Because of her position, rank and authority, she expected to be treated a > certain way...which was why it was important to treat her just the opposite. > It's easy to put oneself into a grand prophecy, to assume one has a > destiny...to pay the price for that is something else again. Anyone can do > the former; very few can ever do the latter. > > Sacrificing oneself happens frequently...but for just one other person, AND > in a situation where no one else would ever know about it. Bear in mind that > he wasn't testing people randomly; only those who felt that they were chosen > of god, fulfillers of prophecy...people who assumed that they were part of > some grand scheme, and thus to whom an anonymous death is an intolerable > thought. > > Also, most probably never *got* that far, unable to stand the real pain of > being placed in this position. Everybody can talk the talk; very few can > walk the walk. Most probably just yanked off the bracelets and split, on the > theory that they weren't being sufficiently coddled or glorified...or > because being a potential prophet isn't as much fun as they'd thought. > > Will: thanks, and you're quite right; it does say something about the > Vorlons that they'd use Jack for this purpose. Now we just have to further > define what that is. > > It's pretty clear, to lots of folks, that the test was in some ways (most, > actually) more for Delenn's benefit than Kosh's...lots of folks got > this...and then others have said, "Well, if that's what he meant, why didn't > he just have one of them come out and SAY this, say what was learned or that > this was for THEIR benefit?" > > So frankly, whether one comes out and says something, or does not come out > and say something, someone on one side or the other is going to give you a > hard time about it." > > >Then at the end we find out that Scotland Yard wasn't inept, Jack the > >Ripper > >was absconded by the Vorlons for thier inscrutable reasons. What has this > >to do with the "Coming Darkness?" Where did finding out his fate fit into > >the grand scheme of things? Please don't tell me he plays an important > >role > >later in the series. > > Sebastian's conversation with Sheridan at the end of the episode gives a lot > of insight into why the Vorlons picked him. Basically, Sebastian had been > guilty of one of the very things he was testing Delenn for: a blind moral > certitude in his own righteousness. > > As for where finding out Jack the Ripper's fate fit into the grand scheme of > things... it doesn't. You'll never see or hear of Sebastian again. > (Although, IIRC, the actor later also plays one or two of the more heavily > makeuped aliens at some point in the show.) Jack the Ripper was used > because JMS wanted to use a well-known (to the viewers), evil historical > figure from Earth for the Inquisitor. See quotes below for more on this. > > More assorted snippets collected and rearranged from the JMS quotes: > "Also, check Sebastian's reaction when he asks Delenn what if she's wrong, > "have you ever considered that? HAVE YOU?" > She responds, softly, "....yes." > > Look at his face when she says this. It rattles him. It's not the answer he > expected, but more important, it's not the answer he wanted, needed to hear. > > He needed to hear her say that she had never had the slightest *scintilla* > of doubt, that as he had been, she was a True Believer, a fanatic, incapable > of doubt of mistake...and thus doomed to failure. He can't even meet her > gaze; he turns, looks away, and suggests an "intermission" that is more for > his benefit than hers. > > There's an awful lot going on in this show, a great deal of it sub rosa, > under the surface, implied in gestures or hesitations or looks, some > implied, some stated outright. He *hates* the memory of Jack; it's not his > name, the one thing that is his...remember, he is caught up with "who ARE > you?" and his answer to that is lost in the persona created by history...his > true name, is what's totally forgotten to history. > > I looked at who this historical figure could be, but no one else fit into > the area I wanted. It was a decision born of necessity, not whim. I needed > someone far enough removed not to have any current victims' families still > alive; someone known to a worldwide population (anonymous wouldn't have > worked because why would Sheridan have known about him, why should we care, > why should it resonate, and we'd spend time explaining what he did that > would have meant cutting out other material in the episode); the other > serial killers tend to have clear fates, whereas Jack vanished and is thus > "available" to us; visually that period makes for a striking contrast to > 2259. > > And, again, you have to look at who he *was*...a fanatic, trying to clean up > Spittlefields (good cause) by hatred (wrong reason) and murder (wrong > means), the EXACT thing Delenn warns against at the very start of the show. > (Did you know there's a letter in the London Times for that period that > tries to explain the Ripper's motives as a cry ofr (for) understanding about > conditions in that part of London?) He felt he was a divine messenger, > learned he was not, and in bitterness has become the single best inquisitor > you could've had in that job. > > Every single thing about Jack made him *perfect* for that role, as mirror, > menace and warning sign. So I used him. And I'd do it again. You have to > find what works best for the story, and do it. > > I used Jack because he was perfect for that particular job, which was what > the Vorlons had decided as well. Simple as that. > > >Jack the Ripper has been used too much in SF. > So, in other words, if a historical, real character has been used in some > other venue, if the use of that same character in another, wholly different > world/series/show/universe is absolutely, totally and completely the right > thing for that story, one should instead do what's *wrong* for the story and > leave it out? > Sorry. Don't buy it. > > You can't exclude or include anything in your story just because a character > or concept has been used by others. If we were to do that, then we might as > well never make the show, because others have shown starships and hyperspace > and aliens. Okay, yes, others have used Jack. But not in the same way. It > was *right* for this show...should it not be used because oths have also > used this character? I think that the moment you begin constantly > course-correcting your show in reaction to other shows, you're dead in the > water. You have to do what's right for *this* story, in *this* episode. And > I think we showed a very different aspect of the character and the situation > than has been shown before. If we just did the same old gag -- Jack comes to > B5 and begin murdring people again -- then I'd agree. But we didn't. I think > you have to judge a show by what's IN the show, and how well it's done, not > against what has been done in other places. > > Otherwise we might as well throw out starships and beam weapons and aliens > and all the rest, since those have ALL been done a lot more than Jack." > > >BS flag at the top of the staff, snapping furiously. > > > >What dreck! > > I disagree; I like it, but it probably took 4 viewings over the years to > really come to that opinion. My favorite scene, though, has nothing to do > with JtR... it was the scene where Vir apologizes to G'Kar in the elevator, > very moving. Maybe ... I know I'll watch it again, but I'm going to wait until I have all five seasons of my own. And I agree, the Vir apolizing to G'Kar scene is wonderful. > > >If this episode had been the first I had seen, I may not have watched > >another. Fortunately, every episode in season 2 up to that point had me > >riveted to the screen. And all of you had said its going to get even > >better. > > > >I know this episode is a glitch, a hiccough, but I was sorely disappointed > >in it. Just watched the finale, "The Fall of Night". I'm ready for season 3--RIGHT NOW! > > Well, I don't think anyone promised you that *every* episode would be > fantastic, just that the season as a whole was even better than season 1. > I'll say right up front that every season has a couple so-so or not-so-great > episodes, IMHO. Season 3 has one episode that I think is quite lousy, and > the worst B5 episode overall. But the best episodes, and the quality of the > overall show, make it well worth tolerating those episodes that aren't quite > as good, but Your Mileage May Vary, of course. This is superior SF, and flat out good story telling. George A _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
