NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that its opened in much of the world, I was wondering if anyone here had a take on the particularily American politics presented in the film Serenity. Over here stateside there was some small hubub over the libertarian themes present in the movie. Comments?

I don't remember seeing any political issues over the movie.. Hell, not enough people saw it to make issues. Just all the Browncoats.

They're not showing it in theatres here in Brazil, it's going straight to DVD with no estimated release date. <is a very sad browncoat>

I think the themes where pretty obvious:

bad guys = Bush etc (obviously)

good guys = liberals; free thinkers.

The liberals won because liberalism is better than evilism/hatism (aka conservatism).

I think the themes where pretty obvious:

bad guys = Bush etc (obviously)

good guys = liberals; free thinkers.

The liberals won because liberalism is better than evilism/hatism (aka conservatism).
:rolleyes:

And leftists wonder why they're disliked. Sigh. :(

I haven't seen the movie yet, but i saw the serise (I have the box set), and I just like that he's a space cowboy :)

And yea, I can see how the themes of independence and not having some evil government run your life would piss off many Americans :)

:rolleyes:

And leftists wonder why they're disliked. Sigh. :(

:p Only disliked in the US. People in the free world are more sensible.

Ok, i'm done ;)

I think the themes where pretty obvious:

bad guys = Bush etc (obviously)

good guys = liberals; free thinkers.

The liberals won because liberalism is better than evilism/hatism (aka conservatism).

I wonder if I can register "hatist" for the next general election :)

I think the themes where pretty obvious:

bad guys = Bush etc (obviously)

good guys = liberals; free thinkers.

The liberals won because liberalism is better than evilism/hatism (aka conservatism).

Interesting take ln the good guys. Were I a more hopeful person I would faithfully believe that when you say "liberal" you mean it in the European sense (which would be Libertarian here in the states). While Bush is certainly the current incarnation of big government, I think that government intervention in general was meant to be the danger.

:p Only disliked in the US. People in the free world are more sensible.

Ok, i'm done ;)
To a turn, one hopes. :rolleyes:

I was out of the country at the time it came out, was there really a hubub over the movie?

And I'd definatly place the political tones of Firefly more libertarian then liberal (American liberl, anyway)

And yea, I can see how the themes of independence and not having some evil government run your life would piss off many Americans :)


Wu-huh-huh? (Think the sound Inara made when she found out Jayne was the Hero of Canton, not Mal).

Never been to the midwest...or the pacific northwest, or really, anywhere between California and the East Coast (all the damn way down through Florida, thank you). have ya?

Interesting take ln the good guys. Were I a more hopeful person I would faithfully believe that when you say "liberal" you mean it in the European sense (which would be Libertarian here in the states). While Bush is certainly the current incarnation of big government, I think that government intervention in general was meant to be the danger.

yeh, seriously, the big government vs. people just trying to live their lives was obviously the political theme in Serenity. The same "anarchists" vs the establishment theme was also pretty prevelant in the series (Firefly) as well as in Buffy and Angel. I guess Joss Whedon likes that angle, ordinary people struggling against something big and oppressive and out to get them. That is partly what i meant. However I was also trying to annoy Unitedstatesians by invoking the whole "liberal" vs. "conservative" thing ;)

Wu-huh-huh? (Think the sound Inara made when she found out Jayne was the Hero of Canton, not Mal).

Never been to the midwest...or the pacific northwest, or really, anywhere between California and the East Coast (all the damn way down through Florida, thank you). have ya?

That's the ironic part, those people who claim to be for small government are the ones who voted for Bush, who vastly expanded the police powers of government and is spending money like it's water. Wasn't the conservative party supposed to be about fiscal conserency and small government?

I love Jaynetown, it's a good episode :)

yeh, seriously, the big government vs. people just trying to live their lives was obviously the political theme in Serenity. The same "anarchists" vs the establishment theme was also pretty prevelant in the series (Firefly) as well as in Buffy and Angel. I guess Joss Whedon likes that angle, ordinary people struggling against something big and oppressive and out to get them. That is partly what i meant. However I was also trying to annoy Unitedstatesians by invoking the whole "liberal" vs. "conservative" thing ;)

Meh, all you annoy are the partyliners, who give the rest of us bad names. Honestly, if people like Pat Roberston and Michael Moore could just close their maws once in awhile, I think the general shrillness of American discourse would reduce considerably.

That's the ironic part, those people who claim to be for small government are the ones who voted for Bush, who vastly expanded the police powers of government and is spending money like it's water. Wasn't the conservative party supposed to be about fiscal conserency and small government?

I love Jaynetown, it's a good episode :)


It was supposed to be. I'm just glad I didn't vote for him (yeah, I contributed to Badnarik's less than 1%). Believe me, Bush hurt the Republican party a hell of alot more than he hurt the country. America will bounce back, and once the Mayburry Fascists go back to whatever hole they crawled out of, the support for their worst transgressions will go away. Hell, theres already cracks in Washington (Senators, Generals, and the CIA all starting to distance themselves), and it looks like Bush will be a lame duck before the middle of his second term. Alot of the western states, especially the Mountain red states look like they might turn on the republicans because of spending, everyone but the neocons is pissed off about the torture thing (look at how much support McCain has), and the Libby trial might just bring Cheney down with it (I lived in Chicago when Fitzgerald was going after corruption here, and the man is bulldog).

:rolleyes:

And leftists wonder why they're disliked. Sigh. :(

Yes, because what one person so obviously sums up the views of an entire wing of politics, compirising of many, many differing philosophies and ideals.

:rolleyes:

It was supposed to be. I'm just glad I didn't vote for him (yeah, I contributed to Badnarik's less than 1%). Believe me, Bush hurt the Republican party a hell of alot more than he hurt the country. America will bounce back, and once the Mayburry Fascists go back to whatever hole they crawled out of, the support for their worst transgressions will go away. Hell, theres already cracks in Washington (Senators, Generals, and the CIA all starting to distance themselves), and it looks like Bush will be a lame duck before the middle of his second term. Alot of the western states, especially the Mountain red states look like they might turn on the republicans because of spending, everyone but the neocons is pissed off about the torture thing (look at how much support McCain has), and the Libby trial might just bring Cheney down with it (I lived in Chicago when Fitzgerald was going after corruption here, and the man is bulldog).

I hope your right

I hope your right

So do I. Thankfully, in the event that I'm wrong, I have enough ammunition stockpiled to be the king cannibal when we inevitably descend into a post-apocalyptic nightmare.

Serenity is only 'libertarian', in as much as it promotes civil liberties, and moral freedoms. It certainly doesn't cling to the 'anti-socialist' agenda of the libertarian platform - being, as it is, a Jesus-like story of a collective, with shared triumphs and tribulations, despite their disparate personal agendas.

So do I. Thankfully, in the event that I'm wrong, I have enough ammunition stockpiled to be the king cannibal when we inevitably descend into a post-apocalyptic nightmare.


heh. Take me with you? ;-)

I think the themes where pretty obvious:

bad guys = Bush etc (obviously)

good guys = liberals; free thinkers.

The liberals won because liberalism is better than evilism/hatism (aka conservatism).

Correction.

The Bad guys weren't Bush (neo-conservatives) but they were people who wanted to make the perfect society. That's big government by any ideological stripe.

The Good guys weren't liberals - at least not by the US definition. They were what Americans would call libertarians - they didn't want the government messing with their smuggling operations, and didn't want central government control over the outer planets.

Serenity is only 'libertarian', in as much as it promotes civil liberties, and moral freedoms. It certainly doesn't cling to the 'anti-socialist' agenda of the libertarian platform - being, as it is, a Jesus-like story of a collective, with shared triumphs and tribulations, despite their disparate personal agendas.

Not anti-socialist? Did you come into the theater late? Granted, there wasn't a soliloquy on the gold standard or the importance of floated currency, but a film in which the thesis seems to be be: The larger the government, the greater it's capacity to do evil, is kind of at odds with any kind of organized socialism. A government that does not "meddle" cannot be a socialist government.

(umm, obligatory spoiler warning for those who haven't seen the film)

Also, I feel your reading of the narrative as a "Jesus-like story of a collective" seems to miss a few important nuances. First, this is not a story about shared triumphs, it is a story about the importance of disobediance. Mal is still a browncoat, he is still a revolutionary, and he still wars against the "Good Guys," the people who brought civilization and light to the 'verse. River is a single life that the government wants to sacrifice for the good of all. By the time she leaves the bar, she is a murderer. The thought of turning her in never crosses Mal's mind, because to do so would be to obey.

Second, Mal cannot be a collectivist hero. He is not a Ghandi or a Christ. He clearly puts his own liberty above that of society's good. He embodies the libertarian principal by taking that seemingly greedy stance and still caring for those under his command. He is the archetype of the libertarian, the individual who drives out the government but still holds chaos at bay. He stands between the Reavers (a total collapse of society into it's base nature) and the Alliance (totalitarian civilization at the expse of individual liberty). Further, he is unbound by the normal rules and regulations of society (to move outside of the movie, in the opening episode of the series he views the murder of a federal officer as not an issue of if, but who will do it and when).

Third, the actions of Malcom Reynolds must be looked at carefully. His final plan, his method of getting information about liberty to the masses, involves the murder (and probable rape/torture of at least some) of thousands of his enemies. As a diversion. This is not the action of a collective. This is not an act that would be morally acceptable to anyone who does not view liberty as more important than even the lives of others.

Finally, the secret of Miranda is inherantly anti-collectivist. It is possable that the individuals who died consented to their deaths (though likely that they didn't). However, what Reynolds (and, by extension, the film) takes offense to is that a government would even attempt to help people in this way. It is the infringement of liberty that the Captain finds so abberant. Indeed, this is the one unifying theme in the three major plot events of the story. Liberty is attacked by the government in the battle for independance, the rape of River's mind, and the murder of Miranda. The series itself was just one example of this theme after another, nearly every episode featured a major situation in which the liberty of individuals was threatened by either the government or society.

Let the film speak for itself: "A year from now, ten, the'll swing back to the belief that they can make people...better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I am to misbehave."

Not anti-socialist? Did you come into the theater late? Granted, there wasn't a soliloquy on the gold standard or the importance of floated currency, but a film in which the thesis seems to be be: The larger the government, the greater it's capacity to do evil, is kind of at odds with any kind of organized socialism. A government that does not "meddle" cannot be a socialist government.

(umm, obligatory spoiler warning for those who haven't seen the film)

Also, I feel your reading of the narrative as a "Jesus-like story of a collective" seems to miss a few important nuances. First, this is not a story about shared triumphs, it is a story about the importance of disobediance. Mal is still a browncoat, he is still a revolutionary, and he still wars against the "Good Guys," the people who brought civilization and light to the 'verse. River is a single life that the government wants to sacrifice for the good of all. By the time she leaves the bar, she is a murderer. The thought of turning her in never crosses Mal's mind, because to do so would be to obey.

Second, Mal cannot be a collectivist hero. He is not a Ghandi or a Christ. He clearly puts his own liberty above that of society's good. He embodies the libertarian principal by taking that seemingly greedy stance and still caring for those under his command. He is the archetype of the libertarian, the individual who drives out the government but still holds chaos at bay. He stands between the Reavers (a total collapse of society into it's base nature) and the Alliance (totalitarian civilization at the expse of individual liberty). Further, he is unbound by the normal rules and regulations of society (to move outside of the movie, in the opening episode of the series he views the murder of a federal officer as not an issue of if, but who will do it and when).

Third, the actions of Malcom Reynolds must be looked at carefully. His final plan, his method of getting information about liberty to the masses, involves the murder (and probable rape/torture of at least some) of thousands of his enemies. As a diversion. This is not the action of a collective. This is not an act that would be morally acceptable to anyone who does not view liberty as more important than even the lives of others.

Finally, the secret of Miranda is inherantly anti-collectivist. It is possable that the individuals who died consented to their deaths (though likely that they didn't). However, what Reynolds (and, by extension, the film) takes offense to is that a government would even attempt to help people in this way. It is the infringement of liberty that the Captain finds so abberant. Indeed, this is the one unifying theme in the three major plot events of the story. Liberty is attacked by the government in the battle for independance, the rape of River's mind, and the murder of Miranda. The series itself was just one example of this theme after another, nearly every episode featured a major situation in which the liberty of individuals was threatened by either the government or society.

Let the film speak for itself: "A year from now, ten, the'll swing back to the belief that they can make people...better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I am to misbehave."

***SPOILERS RISK***

No.. I was one of those Browncoats in there early, actually. :)

I disagree with almost every point of your analysis, though...

Never does Mal say that government is bad, because it is BIG... on the contrary, what he rails against is CORRUPTION, and the invasion of his liberties. As I said - in THIS respect, Mal is conforming a little to the social agenda of libertarianism.

It is a parallel to the Buffy stories, where the Council are too conservative, too self-serving, and too invasive. This is why Buffy rails against the Council, why Giles rails against the Council.

If Joss Whedon is anything, he is anti-corruption... anti-conservatism (for the SAKE of conservatism... he is no enemy of sticking with GOOD ideas). Which is why his heroes (and heroines) are iconoclasts.

In Firefly, and Serenity, it is not the SIZE of the Government that is the problem - it is the totalitarian rule they have, and the way they stamp-out any disagreement with ruthless force. One has only to look at the obvious historical parallel (the American Civil War) to see an army fighting against oppression, in a society torn apart over rights to sovereignty.

Mal is the Confederate. His side loses due to attrition - the issues that STARTED the war (sovereignty) remain unresolved, but the 'Union' just steamrollers straight over them.

Is Mal's position thus opposed to socialism? Not at all - what it IS opposed to is STATISM. Can Mal be perceived as a Communistic icon? Sure - but an anarcho-communist, not some form of statist-communist.

Would Whedon dare to suggest that a form of communism could be slightly palatable? Could be integrated, internally, in 'syndicates' existing within a more varied society? Perhaps... after all, he didn't HAVE to make the Serenity universe a hybrid society of updated American and Chinese cultures.

I agree that the story is about the importance of disobedience - as I said, Whedon's heroes are iconoclasts - but MERE disobedience doesn't serve. Think of the series... think of Mal condemning Jayne to death-by-atmosphere when he crosses Simon and River. Disobedience IS important - but the collective is MOST important.

But, while Mal's 'collective' IS an intensely personal one, it is clear (especially in the film - you can't stop the signal) that Mal wishes freedom from tyranny for ALL of society. The Serenity crew are his 'apostles', the Truth about the Reavers is 'the Word'. The Christ parallel is very relevent.

Does Mal represent that 'greedy' principle of Libertarianism? It seems more that Serenity falls-apart from episode to episode. What you are calling 'greed' might be better called 'survival'. I am struck by the image of Mal fighting against oxygen starvation as he reassembles engine components...

I'd also have to disagree with your analysis of Reavers... I'm not seeing humanity at it's most base - I am seeing humanity forced beyond rationality by brutality... an evil empire of absolute control, spawning an evil empire of insurgents, perhaps?

Regarding the Reaver incident in the movie - I don't see the same angle you are arguing. Is Mal bringing death, brutality and rape? Well, it IS following him, but isn't he just the messenger? Is he not just the harbinger of the Evil Empire's bastard sons, returning to wreak their vengeance?

Is Mal bringing death to innocents? On the contrary, he is returning the 'sickness' planted BY the oppressor, TO the oppressor.

Regarding the secret of Miranda - we aren't really talking an issue of 'help'... and I'm not sure where you got that idea. What the Government brought to Miranda was 'Control' - further reinforced by River's memories. The population were brainwashed, and chemically docilated... to death.

Your last paragraph is about the ONLY part I can fully agree with - liberty is one of the big themes. Freedom. But, the other big messages are family, community, equality (definitely not a 'conventional' Libertarian principle)... and, of course, Joss Whedon's trademark iconoclasm.

""A year from now, ten, the'll swing back to the belief that they can make people...better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running. I am to misbehave." Mal resists the Governments revision of Third Reich-style eugenics and social-Darwinism... and resists the absolutism and despotism of the distopian regime.

*snip*

Sorry about the snip, but if someone is lost they can always go back and read what you wrote.

Anyway, I have to disagree with your argument that Mal's problem with the government isn't it's size (or very existance) but it's corruption. This is a problem of forests and trees. If you examine Mal's reaction to government (in the movie and the series), I don't think he make much of a distinction between government and corruption. To Mal, governments are inherantly corrupt, all forms of authority are, no matter how small. Look at Mal's (and, more importantly, River's) reaction to Badger in the episodes "Serenity" and "Shindig." Badger is not an example of the alliance, he is a self-made man, a baron of the little criminal world Mal lives in. River calls him a "Sad little king of a sad little hill" and makes reference to the fact that he lies about how much time hes spent in Jail. Clearly, Joss is writing even this tiny provisional authority figure as a symbol of oppression. In the firefly world, the size of the authority only dictates the size of the atrocity it can inflict. Smaller tyrants can hurt single people, break rules, make life desperate and unfair for a few, larger ones can murder millions and kill worlds.

If you look closely at Whedon's work, you do not see independant positive authority. Any authority figure that is not tied into the hero through a psudo-familial bond (The Scooby Gang, Angel Investigations, and the crew of Serenity) is bad. Honestly, can you point to a single authority figure in Serenity, Buffy, or Angel that is both not familial and not invasive? In Serenity you see it alot more often, but it is an undercurrent in all of his work.

Now, I agree that Mal seeks freedom for society as a whole, and your mentioning of the line "you can't stop the signal" is a good one.

I disagree, however, that Mal is only "returning" sickness. Mal isn't a philospher, and he isn't a general. Mal is a soldier, a leader in the trenches, there is no symbolism in his use of the reavers. They are conveniant and they represent a chance for revenge. When Mal is moved to hate, as he is by the death of Book, he is not a "great man," he is vengeful. Again, think of the end of Shindig, when Mal chooses to leave his enemy broken, wounded, and humiliated. Indeed, rather than simply be the bigger man and walk away, he wounds Wing twice more out of spite.

To me, the Mal that we see in the third act of Serenity is the Mal that borrows the most from the Western genre. He reminds me of William Munny at the end of Unforgiven, a man who tried to turn his back on his more violent days and is drawn back. Leading the Reavers to the Alliance isn't about justice. It is insurrection and revenge as much as it is a distraction so he can show the world what happened on Miranda. The revers are not a messenger, they are a tool of retribution. Mal's treatment of the Operative is telling, too. He could kill the man who has caused him so much pain, but instead, he decides to do worse, he takes the man's faith. He destroys everything that means anything to the Operative and leaves him a broken shell. Even then, after the Operative has clearly had a change of heart, Mal warns of his intent to kill him if they ever meet again.

Your reference to the episode "Out of Gas" is an interesting one. I feel that Mal staying with his ship, in the desperate hope to keep it alive, isn't so much about Mal being a libertarian, as about him being a believer. All Mal has is his ship, without it, he is nothing, he is not free. He is an ex-soldier on the losing side of a war. He doesn't even have a home to go to, his planet having been bombed to the point that it is no longer able to support life. All he has is "his sky," and he would rather die than lose it.

As for the Christ parallel, I still don't agree. If you have to shoehorn a religious parallel in there, its either Mohammed (for Mal's role as Warrior-prophet) or a Miltonian Lucifer (as the damned hero who refuses to submit).

Finally, I disagree on your claim that Mal never says government is bad. In the very first episode he says that government's only purpose is to "get in the way." More broadly, governments (and authority) in Firefly are, at best, ineffectual and, at worst, evil. Patience tries to use her power to cheat Mal, Badger takes umbrage at Mal's superiority and tries to break him on two occasions, Niska is just plain evil, the government at Paradiso is unable to even provide medicine for it's citizens, the outer planets have to hire private security because the alliance cannot provide police, Inara is a intelligent woman trapped by her society, and the hookers in the episode "Heart of Gold" can only defend themselves from tyranny by being stronger and meaner than the petty tyrant who keeps everyone poor and low tech so he can play cowboy.

Correction.

The Bad guys weren't Bush (neo-conservatives) but they were people who wanted to make the perfect society. That's big government by any ideological stripe.

The Good guys weren't liberals - at least not by the US definition. They were what Americans would call libertarians - they didn't want the government messing with their smuggling operations, and didn't want central government control over the outer planets.
That is because the only liberals are Libertarians.

When Fox News/Republicans says liberal they mean Democrat not Liberal. They are so stuck up with thierselves they won't check their definations and get it straight.

You can't change definations "just because" or I define Conservatives as Illegal terrorosts. Now the Republican party is illegal. :p

See you can't do that because should decide? Should we have a national amendment so the people are involved?

That is because the only liberals are Libertarians. [snip]


I'm not American myself. To me a liberal is a progressive - someone who wants change to the benefit of all. But that does not necessarily fit the libertarian label either.

But I strongly disagree that the only liberals are libertarians.