(no subject)

[mamculuna]

Just watched Stargate--the movie from 1997. Not only was it extremely weird to see Jaye Davidson as a Pharaoh (even if he was an alien underneath), but I was also reading an article in the new Harper's during the commercials ("Our Present Disillusionment" by Jacqueline Rose) discussing the narcissism of our war in Iraq. It made the movie look a lot like the war. A few brave Americans come zapping in out of nowhere, immediately comprehend the situation the poor dumb inhabitants can't figure out, vaporize the inhuman despot, are cheered and loved by all (including young boys who immediately start acting like the American soldiers), go zapping home all safe and sound, and everyone lives happily ever after.

Why didn't it work out that way?

Comments

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

I'm not surprised to hear from you about this one! Thanks, since you know it so well. I did like the characters, especially Daniel. And yes, that bit about the chocolate was really telling.

I have a feeling that the series, which I may start watching now, actually is a little less simplistic than the film. And I agree that freedom's a good thing--but what was worrisome to me about the movie and the situation in Iraq is the idea that you can create freedom just by killing a bad guy. Even the history of the US is a good example that holding on to freedom is a lot more complicated than that. George Orwell's *Animal Farm* is just one version of what freedom can lead to with some additional work. As were the wars in the former Yugoslavia. Basically, just killing the bad guy and leaving means that you can have "the war of all against all" or that some other bad guy will step in to fill the vacuum.

Actually, the history of China in the 20th century could also be an example of what can happen after the bad guy is gone.

[scrollgirl.livejournal.com]

I have a feeling that the series, which I may start watching now, actually is a little less simplistic than the film.

Yes, definitely. Just as Buffy the TV series is much more complex than the movie, so is Stargate SG-1 more complex than its movie counterpart. Though I think Stargate takes itself much less seriously than Buffy, and is both not as complex and also much more "subtle" -- or at least, not as explicit -- about its themes and goals.

Agree that just killing the bad guy isn't enough. I don't think it'd be spoiling you for the series to say that killing Ra didn't mean all Abydonians suddenly converted to atheism. The oppression of humans and the pervasive nature of Egyptian mythology is such that you can't unravel the good from the bad so easily. Fundamental beliefs must be challenged.

Actually, the history of China in the 20th century could also be an example of what can happen after the bad guy is gone.

How sad is it that I don't even know my own heritage, really? My father has no love for communism at all, but the chaos that came after wasn't necessarily any better, I think. Necessary, maybe, but not better.

[mamculuna.livejournal.com]

Well, SG1 sounds even more interesting! Will give it a try.

What I meant about China was that they overthrew the emperor early in the century, only to wind up with Mao and some other terrible things, later--and similarly in Russia they overthrew the Tsar and got Stalin in his place. Freedom's not easy to hold on to!