America through a cop show.

I have recently been watching the TV show “The Rookie” on Now TV. Now entering its sixth season, the show is about officer John Nolan (Nathan Fillion), a 45 year old construction contractor from Pennsylvania who becomes the oldest rookie in the history of the Los Angeles Police Department. 

It’s a very entertaining police procedural with a light sprinkling of humour, and also, as one binge watches, an interesting insight into how America sees itself on TV.

One of the constant themes of the show is the need for people to be “held accountable”, or the attribution of blame, a theme which the show is very self aware about.

Episode after episode is about working people who end up breaking laws which they simply do not have the financial capacity to obey. Whether it is affording motor tax, or leaving an elderly relative unattended so that you can attend the job interview that will help pay for her care, the show often focusses on how Americans set themselves levels of rigidity and personal responsibility that their social and economic model conspires to prevent them reaching.

Another constant theme which will strike an Irish viewer is the lack of pragmatic approaches by the police officers in the show to problems compared to say, how an Irish Garda would approach it.

One episode sees a single father who has recently lost his wife commit an opportunistic crime (he steals money from bank robbers) to help alleviate his son’s situation. The episode ends with the father being arrested, and the son handed over to social services, an outcome which satisfies no one and results in huge taxpayer cost and the breakup of a struggling family with the social costs that will entail. Yet the officers have no choice: everything is measured by arrest and conviction, with a sprinkling of puritan judgementalism.

I’m aware, in writing this, that I’m an advocate of more robust policing in Ireland. But I still support the need for police officers, as members of society, to be able to exercise judgement and pursue the path of least harm, a policy that the characters of “The Rookie” often yearn for in their daily policing.

The other striking aspect, and I’ve no idea how realistic this is, or whether it is just Hollywood hype, is how nearly every episode has a normalised gun battle on public streets involving the use of military grade fully automatic weapons, with civilians fleeing streets as thousands of rounds of ammunition are expended.  

Have a look: it’s a good show.  

 

 

Star Trek: Why is Starfleet overwhelmingly made up of humans?

One of the more contradictory aspects of  “Star Trek” is the fact that although the  United Federation of Planets is supposedly made-up of over 150 different and presumably equally represented races, when it comes to the presentation of those races in Starfleet it is quite normal for Starfleet crews to be often 80% human. Does this point to an inherent racism within the Federation, that it is in fact like the British Commonwealth, nominally an alliance of common nations but in reality dominated by a single member? The original series, probably due to sloppy writing more than anything else, tended to veer between the Federation basically being a human alliance, and occasionally accepting that humans only played a part in it. As with most things in a multilateral political union, the answer is probably multifaceted.

The real-universe answer is simply that it’s cheaper to have a bunch of actors who don’t require prosthetics and alien makeup. The original series pretty much gave up on there being too many aliens in Starfleet. Having said that, JJ Abrahams made a much greater effort in his three movies to show diversity in the Starfleet crew.

The first possibility is simply that there are other ships where the human contingent maybe very small or even non-existent. Some episodes of Star Trek have indeed shown all-Vulcan ships, and like NATO it would not be surprising, for coherence, to have some ships where a single race or culture dominates. A ship with a single race can have a single temperature or climate that suits the whole crew. Indeed, there have been episodes where Federation members (again with the Vulcans) have maintained ships separate from Starfleet entirely.

There’s also one other reason: maybe humans just like space travel more? As in the European Union, maybe every Federation member has a quota of Starfleet officers it’s entitled to fill, but most don’t, and humans are then permitted to fill the surplus places. It’s also possible that the other races are quite happy for humans to go off getting themselves killed on their behalf: after all, most of the Federation’s casualties fighting the Borg and the Dominion were almost certainly overwhelmingly human too.

Interestingly, the issue also raises the question as why Kirk’s original monologue, “…where no man has gone before” is actually more accurate and actually less racist than the (at the time) more politically savvy “…where no one has gone before.”

Why? Because “no man” is suggesting that this may be the first time humans are encountering some new sector of space, whereas “no one” suggests that the new races encountered are inferior to Federation species. Think I’m splitting hairs?

Ask yourself this: did Christopher Columbus go where no one had gone before, or just where no Italian had? I know what the Cherokee, Choctaw and Apache thought.

Star Trek: Is the federation a democracy?

One of the more curious aspects of the Star Trek universe is the fact that elections are never mentioned. The United Federation of Planets is held up as the great defender of individual freedom and “human” rights, and throughout the series those rights are a constant source of debate for both Federation members but also the many worlds applying to join the alliance. There is no question that individual freedom is a keystone of Federation citizenship. But we have no idea how those citizens govern themselves, or indeed if they even do, or just exist in a form of benign communist state.

Viewers know that there is a president of the Federation, who is answerable to a Federation Council, which is a legislature made up of representatives of the various members planets of the Federation who have their own governments, but that is pretty much all the knowledge we actually have about government within the UFP.

Having said that, it is possible to speculate what form of government exists. In “Picard” Admiral Clancy points out that member governments of the Federation overruled the mass evacuation of Romulan refugees, and in Star Trek: Insurrection rogue Admiral Dougherty (Is every baddy Starfleet admiral of Irish extraction?) warned that if the Federation public heard of the conspiracy he was involved in there would be problems.

It’s very possible that the United Federation of Planets is a European Union style indirect democracy, where citizens elect (or at least consent to) their member planet government, which sends representatives to the Federation Council, and the Council elects a president. It would also explain why the Federation Presidents tend to be weak non-descript characters (as most European Commission Presidents are, at least initially).

Whilst one is given the impression watching the various Star Trek series that the Federation Council is the highest legislative authority within the alliance, and has power over Starfleet, Starfleet does seem to have considerable on the ground autonomy. Having said that, it’s worth recognising that we only really see the chain of command between admirals and ship captains, and any time the Federation President does appear on screen (especially in Star Trek: Discovery, but not only) Starfleet admirals are clearly subordinate to the civilian leadership. 

Finally, one other that is almost never mentioned in Star Trek is, of course, the fact that every member planet has its own government and its own system of government, and that those governments are not necessarily democracies, although having said that the Federation has rejected membership bids from planets with governments that discriminate against minorities or do not rule with the broad consent of their people. It’s also clear that every Federation citizen has access to a common set of rights not dissimilar to European Union citizenship.

The most logical conclusion is that the Federation is, in effect, an indirect democracy with very high levels of freedom. The governments of the planets that make up the Federation are, at a minimum, in office with broad consent, by whatever means their culture dictates, and those governments send representatives to the Federation Council and the Federation Council in turn elects a President of the Federation. And like the European Union, the Federation has freedom of movement (indeed, its possible the Federation has open borders) which allows citizens of both Federation and non-Federation worlds to live on a planet with a culture of their own choosing. Or indeed, even start their own colony. 

 

Great TV: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes

Repost: Recently browsing through my obscene DVD collection (I mean in size, not in content) I was reminded of the fact recently that if I never bought another

Sherlock Holmes BrettDVD again I would not be too troubled. I was also reminded that I have some treasures that I have not watched in ages that are such a treat. Granada Television’s “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes” is one such gem.

It’s available on DVD, and stars the late Jeremy Brett as Holmes and David Burke and Edward Hardwicke respectively as Watson.

Just as every generation has its James Bond, Batman and Doctor Who, for my generation, growing up in the 1980s, Jeremy Brett WAS Sherlock Holmes, and for two words: Pure Quality.

The period details are great, including an entire life-size Baker Street set. It’s mainly true to the original Conan Doyle stories, but the real meat is in the performances of Brett and his two co-stars.

Brett, who suffered terrible psychological illnesses later in life and died at a mere 61, is just stunning as Holmes, creating an eccentric, captivating character around the framework created by Conan Doyle. Every scene with him leaves you unable to take your eyes off him, with every twitch and flamboyant hand gesture and flinging of himself onto the floor of grand country houses looking for clues adding to the character’s depth.

Both Burke and Hardwicke could easily have been blown off the screen given Brett’s performance, but both instead create a calming, grounding and very human foil to Brett, leaving the viewer with a very clear understanding that Holmes could not be Holmes without Watson, who although is not his intellectual equal, brings to the table human skills that Holmes does not possess, in particular Watson’s skills with women, a fearless willingness to get physical if necessary, and simple human decency. Burke and Hardwicke are pretty much responsible for the repairing of Watson’s reputation after Nigel Bruce’s bumbling fool during the Basil Rathbone years. Today it’s normal to see Watson as equal if differently skilled to Holmes thanks to both men. It was easy to believe Holmes and Watson were genuine friends.

The series was made over a ten year period beginning in 1984. An absolute cracker of a gift for someone.

Cult TV: Matt Houston

matt houston

“Matt Houston”, which ran for three seasons from 1982-1986, gets unfairly labelled as a “Magnum PI” knock-off, primarily because it A) featured a moustachioed PI with a penchant for fast cars, faster women and wisecracks, and B) because it aired two years after Magnum was on the air.

It is true, Lee Horsley, who played Houston, had a very similar self-deprecating, light comic style to Tom Selleck,  and both shows had very similar stories, although Matt Houston missed the sheer iconic scenery of Hawaii, being set mostly in bland Los Angeles.

But there were differences. Houston, despite having inherited millions, was a shrewd businessman who only really acted as a private investigator for the laugh.

Secondly, and more importantly, Houston had the stunning Pamela Hensley (who had left many a teenaged boy, including this one, speechless, as saucy, evil and shockingly underdressed space dominatrix Princess Ardala in “Buck Rogers in the 25th Century” only two years previously) as his sidekick, CJ Parsons. Sure, Higgins was a great guy. But he was no CJ Parsons. Matt Houston, like Thomas Magnum, was what men thought they looked like with a moustache in the mid 1980s.

Like Magum PI, Matt Houston also had a catchy them tune and opening credits.

Great TV you should be watching: The Shield.

The Shield - Where to Watch and Stream Online – Entertainment.ie“The Shield” (2002-2008) is proof that we are actually living in television’s golden age, if only because so many of you haven’t heard of it. The fact is, there is now so much good US TV around that we can’t possibly see it all, and as a result shows like “The Shield” were pushed to late night slots on TV3 where they are never seen except by the drunk and the stoned and the drunk having sex with a slice of still warm pizza stuck to their bum.

The show centres around a special anti-gang “strike team” operating in a poor Los Angeles neighbourhood, led by possibly the greatest TV anti-hero of all, (At least until Dr. Gregory House came along.), Vic Mackey. Mackey is played by a brooding, thuggish Michael Chiklis, who will stun anyone who remembers him from the gentle family comedy drama “The Commish”. Indeed, the whole ensemble cast is superb, in particular Jay Karnes’s socially inept but dogged detective Holland “Dutch” Waggenbach.

The show is rough and hugely politically incorrect, but what really defines it is its moral greyness. Mackey and his team, indeed most of the characters, are either corrupt or at least compromised, and yet when you see what they have to face on a daily basis one can’t help rooting for them. Viewers find themselves hoping that Mackey prevails as he steals drug money from the dealers. One scene in particular, when Mackey faces off against a paedophile who has kidnapped a young girl will turn even the staunchest liberal into a right wing lynchmobber.

As I said, this is adult drama, and as I’ve said before: Go on, treat yourself.

The politics of “Yellowstone”.

Quote

Yellowstone: 5 things you didn't know about the hit Kevin Costner drama | HELLO!

If you haven’t been watching “Yellowstone” on Paramount Plus, which enters its fifth season, you’ve been missing a treat. A cross between “Sons of Anarchy” and “Falcon Crest”, the show features Kevin Costner (He of tongue in bottom lip fame) as John Dutton III, the patriarch of the vast 50,000 acre Yellowstone ranch in Montana his family founded and own since the 1880s. Created by Taylor Sheridan, the show has been labelled by some as a conservative or red state show, and superfically it could bear that label. The value of “keeping what’s ours” is one repeated by many characters throughout the series, and coupled with the constant resort to frontier justice, you can easily see why a certain type of conservative would like the show.

And yet, the politics of the show is much more blended with grey and subtlety.

Dutton is obviously a wealthy and politically powerful man in the state, practically handpicking certain state offices that matter to his business interests, including appointing himself state livestock commissioner, which allows him to have a de facto private police force. He uses a helicopter to both travel to the state capital but also to ranch. In one scene, whilst remonstrating with a Chinese tourist who complains about one man owning so much land, Dutton declares “This is America: we don’t share land.”

And yet, he’s not without money worries. It becomes apparent that whilst his land might be worth nearly half a billion dollars, his personal wealth is probably closer to $40m and he fears local development could sharply increase his property tax liabilities beyond his ability to pay.

Nor is he greedy: when he’s offered huge wealth in return for abandoning his family legacy he simply refuses, even though he knows he is fighting a losing battle against change. For him, legacy and family is everything, a value many Americans can see and respect very easily. He’s not without compassion either: intervening to help a widow deprive a bank of assets he feels her family needs more.

His various nemesis also have a political dimension: his ranch is bordered by a Native American reservation led by business savvy politician Thomas Rainwater (Gil Bermingham) who wants to retake the Yellowstone ranch because “for thousands of years our people hunted, fished and lived on that land: then John Dutton’s great grandfather built a house.” Rainwater supports development because it brings his tribe more revenue for public services. Yet he also shares, with Dutton, a desire for conservation and preserving as much of the valley they both share.

The show is also full of contradictions. Dutton sees the irony, in his family claiming the land in the 1880s from Native Americans, then having to face off against even more well-resourced developers who make the same point the Chinese tourist did, and marvel at the arrogance of one family blocking the creation of thousands of (low paying) jobs. Indeed, one developer, Dan Jenkins (Danny Houston) is genuinely outraged at Dutton’s belief that outsiders have no right to share in the beauty he owns except on his terms.

One other aspect of the show is the disparity in wealth on display: Dutton, Rainwater and the developers all live in relative opulence, whilst their employees and voters live in a world of precarious employment, threats of banks foreclosing, and the powerful pretty much deciding which candidates will be permitted even contest elections. Most of his employees live in a dormitory on the ranch. Many Europeans will look at Dutton paying for an employee’s medical expenses not as a sign of generosity but an indictment where vital medical treatment is only available on the whim of a wealthy employer. The occasional gun battle, normally led by Dutton’s ex-special forces (On USTV, there are no ex-military cooks or plumbers, only special forces) son Kayce in his guise as a Livestock Agent, tend to be against hired goons from developers muscling in on Dutton, or petty criminals trying to make a living in the hard scrabble society of modern-day America. And yet few complain: so inbred is that  “Keeping what’s ours” mentality that far fewer people in the show question the morality of a single man owning a vast part of a state than applaud his son and shake his hand for machine gunning a petty cattle rustler and leaving his daughter an orphan.

If it has a political bias, Yellowstone is culturally liberal (recognizing the great crimes committed against Native Americans) whilst just shrugging its shoulders at economic disparity as if it is some form of natural phenomenon, like a tornado. That’s probably a mainstream view in America today.

Review: “Cheers” on Paramount Plus.

I’ve recently been rewatching the sitcom “Cheers” on Paramount+, where the entire series is currently available. It’s easy for people under the age of 45 to not be aware of the show or how huge it was when it originally aired. Running from 1982-1993 for 275 episodes, and then occasionally resurfacing in spinoff “Frasier” crossovers which ran another 11 seasons, when the show finished in 1993 it was watched by over 90 million people in the US.

The show centred around Sam Malone (Ted Danson), a charming, womanizing, recovering alcoholic ex-professional baseball player who owned the bar, a below street lower middle class bar frequented by regular customers which provided a home from home for them. Whilst the initial seasons focussed on Sam’s relationship with haughty waitress Diane Chambers (played brilliantly by Shelley Long) the real source of the show’s eventual “Friends” like domination of the ratings was the ensemble cast, from kind but dim Coach and Woody, sharp-tongued waitress Carla, know-it-all postman Cliff and failed accountant Norm. When Long left after five years she was replaced by Kirstie Alley’s Rebecca Howe, Sam’s neurotic boss (he’d sold the bar) whom he constantly tried to bed.

Cheers is both genuinely funny but also charming, with a cast that regular viewers came to love as an extended family, all flawed but all lovable. Looking through today’s eyes Sam Malone would be a sex pest who would be either swamped with legal bills or long dismissed by his employer for inappropriate behaviour, but it’s fascinating to watch as a snapshot of the time, before mobile phones and social media, with plots based on misinterpreted phone messages and Cliff’s barside pontifications not being open to challenge (“You know Sammy, it’s a well known fact that…”)

One particularly interesting feature of the show is how female characters deal with Sam’s constant sexual advances. This was the post-1970s, where the “Women’s Lib” movement was petering out against the New Conservatism of Reagan’s America (Reagan was only 20 months in office when the show first aired) and the female characters tend to fend off his passes through sarcasm. Having said that, many of his lovers are as equally sexually aggressive and promiscuous as he is. You can’t help grimacing at his wandering hands, all the same. He’s never grabby, but can be overly touchy.

File under cosy stress-free nostalgic viewing, and keep an eye out for the many guest stars who went on to be much bigger, although none will be as big as Kate Mulgrew’s hair.      JanetEldridge - Twitter Search / Twitter

The US through a TV lens.

 

Previously published in the Irish Independent.

I was watching an episode of “NCIS” recently. You know “NCIS”, right? Actually, chances are you flicked through an episode if you were watching TV because it seems to be perpetually on one of the murder channels, yet have never watched it. 

A regular staple of American pensioners, “NCIS” can be watched as an intriguing insight into how mainstream middle America sees itself.

Every week is a collection of pre-baked tropes: a body is found, with some tenuous connection to the US Navy (NCIS is the Navy’s detective division). The victim used to be a marine or is wearing Old Spice or something.  

Special agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs and his team investigate. 

Continue reading