Episode 1.10: Believers
Ten episodes! This feels like a landmark, though technically it's the eleventh post because I started with the pilot. Take that, numbered chronology!
Episode 10 is a weird one, about which I have very mixed feelings. In the beginning I thought it was going to be a pretty one-note excoriation of faith healing, and of faith in general: a boy is dying, and his parents refuse to allow the simple surgery that would save his life. This is an obvious reference to the Jehovah's Witnesses and other religions that forbid certain medical procedures. I rolled my eyes and settled in for what I assumed would be a ham-fisted anti-religious screed, and then was pleasantly surprised when the show became much more interesting than that.
The doctor goes to the Commander, who tells the parents he'll consider the doctor's request, and the parents immediately assume that the human will side with the human and decide they need to seek out other help. What follows is a very cleverly-written and brilliantly filmed sequence in which each ambassador refuses to help them, and for deliciously character-based reasons: the Narn are too self-interested, the Centauri are too corrupt, the Minbari are too mystical, and the Vorlons don't give a flying hoot about anything. With the exception of blowing up the ship in the last episode (which was a Minbari ship, not a Human ship like I thought it was), the Vorlons have fastidiously avoided giving an opinion or a vote or any aid of any kind to anyone on any subject. Their entire entry in the show's setting bible presumably just says "Inscrutable." (A later update changed this to "As inscrutable as the Minbari pretend to be.")
So the parents get no help, and we're back to the doctor and the commander and the parents, who proceed to have a genuinely deep, difficult, fascinating examination of the concept of faith, and whether God is real, and whether every god is real, and if that even matters in the face of deeply-held religious traditions. This sequence was wonderful, start to finish, in large part because it's something we're just straight-up not used to seeing in Science Fiction. SF is largely very atheist, and Star Trek itself is overtly atheist, starting from the position that "civilized beings have evolved past the need for religion," and moving on from there. Even Deep Space Nine, which made overtures toward religion and faith with the Bajorans, the Prophets, and the Dominion, provides solid scientific explanations of what all of the various gods actually are, just removing themselves from any serious discussion of religion: The Jem'Hadar might believe that the Founders are gods, but the audience knows that they're just very powerful people, and that knowledge removes all meaningful need for faith. Babylon 5 doesn't do that: we never get a scene that shows exactly what the family believes, or provides any on-screen "proof" that the things they believe are true; we see no supernatural shenanigans, we see no mystical manifestations, we see nothing. Even when the Doctor finally heals the kid, and the parents freak out and call him a demon, there's nothing on-screen to show what they're reacting to--the show doesn't give us the easy out of saying "look, he's clearly messed up now, they were right."
Because yes, of course, the Commander eventually forbids the surgery ("I have to speak for the parents, because no one else will!") and of course the doctor does it anyway. The speeches they give each other are exquisite: we have never seen Sinclair this fired-up about anything, and the Doctor literally lights up the screen with his righteous indignation. The best part was when Sinclair demands to know who ever asked the Doctor to play god, and the Doctor said "everybody who comes through my door." His beliefs are strong and his temper his hot and he's ready to throw away his entire career to stand up for what he believes in, and it's a stunning pair of scenes.
My own beliefs on this issue are muddy. I'm an active member of the LDS church, and while we have a strong tradition of faith healing we also embrace science, and don't forbid any particular form of treatment. Our current Prophet is a heart surgeon, for crying out loud. And so while I was able to see the parent's point, and sympathize with their faith, I was also incredible uncomfortable with the idea of letting a child die. On the other hand: what if it was something I DID have a religious objection to? What if my son was going to die, and the only way to save his life was for him to shoot someone in the face? That's not a great example, because it's a poor one-to-one correlation: the family in the show believed that surgery would cause their son to lose his soul, whereas murdering someone would cause my son to lose his soul (so to speak) PLUS it would end somebody else's life. But I hope you can see what I'm getting at: would you want your child's life to be saved, if the only way to do it would be to damn them to hell? Are a few more years on Earth worth an eternity away from Heaven?
This is the kind of SF I love, and the kind of SF that we don't see enough of: probing questions about people and belief and the way we interact with the world. Big, ugly "What If?" questions that cause us to take a second look at the things we think are true. And in light of that, I was sickened but delighted when the show took the next step and said "Look, Doctor, you can't just eff around with somebody's most deeply-held beliefs without some serious repercussions, you stupid flaming bonehead." It should come as no surprise that the parents collect their child, take him home, and euthanize him. "It's okay, doctor, it wasn't him anyway, it was a demon." We all saw this coming a mile away, except apparently the doctor--and also, for some reason, the doctor's assistant, who literally spent the entire episode researching the alien's culture and somehow failed to spot this glaring possibility. The doctor himself gets that particular hero moment, when he scans her files for about five seconds and immediately sees what she didn't, and races through the halls to stop the killing and gets there too late.
This was a Good Story Development. The Doctor was so convinced that he and his worldview were "right," and that the way he chose to do things was "good," and then he was forced to confront the devastating truth that screwing around with other people's cultures is neither easy nor safe. It was a direct counterpoint to so many old Star Trek episodes, in the same way that Enterprise's "Cogenitor" was. ("Cogenitor," by the way, is the best Enterprise episode, bar none. And it stands pretty well on its own, so check it out even if you hate Enterprise.)
But here's where BELIEVERS falls apart, and here's why I started this review by saying my feelings were mixed: the next scene, where the doctor and the commander have to deal with the child's death, is a disaster. First off: the doctor should have been fired, full stop. There is no reason, stated or implied, why he should be allowed to keep his job after flagrantly defying the wishes of the family, the patient himself, his own superior officer, and a mandate designed to maintain peace on the station and in the galaxy. I mean, I'm glad he's still around, because he's probably my favorite character on the show so far, but the show offers no plausible explanation for him keeping his job beyond "well he's a main character so what are we going to do?" And then, just to make it worse, the show offers no kind of fallout from the decision, no final reckoning, no ultimate commentary on what happened or why. Were they trying to say what the first few minutes of the episode looked like they were saying: that the religious family was wrong and stupid and (in the end) evil? Were they trying to say that the doctor was wrong, or that he was right, or that he had learned anything along the way? There's something to be said for ambiguity, especially when you ask big questions like this that don't have easy answers. But there's a difference between "ambiguity" and "shrugging helplessly at the audience." It felt like the writers were standing in the one unpainted section of a freshly-painted floor, looking around in surprise and then gesturing wildly for the director to roll credits. Was the doctor's decision wrong? Then give him some consequences. Was the doctor's decision right? Then show us how, because nothing in the episode suggests that he is.
There are people out there who will read this and say "obviously the doctor was right, because letting someone die for religious reasons is unequivocally terrible." But there are just as many people who would say "the doctor was wrong, because destroying someone's life because you think your own religion is more important than theirs is unequivocally terrible." And I don't think you can ignore either half of that argument because that's the whole point of the episode: if either side was clearly "right," the episode itself would be a waste of time. Now: I should be clear here that I am not arguing in favor of the final euthenasia: killing a child, even if you think he's hopelessly corrupted, is not something I'm willing to get behind. That's one of the ways in which I think "Cogenitor" does a better job with this issue, because the final tragedy points clearly back at the would-be hero, without any child-murder to give you an easy out.
The very final scene almost--almost--makes it work. It doesn't, but at least they tried. The paper-thin B-plot going on in the background of the episode shows Ivanova going off on an aggressively pointless mission with a group of starfighters, during which, if you pay close attention, you realize that she is breaking some rule or other. It hardly matters, because the story is short and boring, but then in the end you realize it was all intended to serve as a counterpoint to the main story: Ivanova broke the rules and everyone was happy, while Doctor Franklin broke the rules and everything went to hell. And I suppose that counts as an ending, but it's weak, and I wanted more.
BELIEVERS asked a thorny question, waded much deeper into the thorns than I expected, and then woke up in the shower and asked if it was all dream. For a show that sells itself as "Star Trek but with consequences," this was an incredibly frustrating entry.
Episode 10 is a weird one, about which I have very mixed feelings. In the beginning I thought it was going to be a pretty one-note excoriation of faith healing, and of faith in general: a boy is dying, and his parents refuse to allow the simple surgery that would save his life. This is an obvious reference to the Jehovah's Witnesses and other religions that forbid certain medical procedures. I rolled my eyes and settled in for what I assumed would be a ham-fisted anti-religious screed, and then was pleasantly surprised when the show became much more interesting than that.
The doctor goes to the Commander, who tells the parents he'll consider the doctor's request, and the parents immediately assume that the human will side with the human and decide they need to seek out other help. What follows is a very cleverly-written and brilliantly filmed sequence in which each ambassador refuses to help them, and for deliciously character-based reasons: the Narn are too self-interested, the Centauri are too corrupt, the Minbari are too mystical, and the Vorlons don't give a flying hoot about anything. With the exception of blowing up the ship in the last episode (which was a Minbari ship, not a Human ship like I thought it was), the Vorlons have fastidiously avoided giving an opinion or a vote or any aid of any kind to anyone on any subject. Their entire entry in the show's setting bible presumably just says "Inscrutable." (A later update changed this to "As inscrutable as the Minbari pretend to be.")
So the parents get no help, and we're back to the doctor and the commander and the parents, who proceed to have a genuinely deep, difficult, fascinating examination of the concept of faith, and whether God is real, and whether every god is real, and if that even matters in the face of deeply-held religious traditions. This sequence was wonderful, start to finish, in large part because it's something we're just straight-up not used to seeing in Science Fiction. SF is largely very atheist, and Star Trek itself is overtly atheist, starting from the position that "civilized beings have evolved past the need for religion," and moving on from there. Even Deep Space Nine, which made overtures toward religion and faith with the Bajorans, the Prophets, and the Dominion, provides solid scientific explanations of what all of the various gods actually are, just removing themselves from any serious discussion of religion: The Jem'Hadar might believe that the Founders are gods, but the audience knows that they're just very powerful people, and that knowledge removes all meaningful need for faith. Babylon 5 doesn't do that: we never get a scene that shows exactly what the family believes, or provides any on-screen "proof" that the things they believe are true; we see no supernatural shenanigans, we see no mystical manifestations, we see nothing. Even when the Doctor finally heals the kid, and the parents freak out and call him a demon, there's nothing on-screen to show what they're reacting to--the show doesn't give us the easy out of saying "look, he's clearly messed up now, they were right."
Because yes, of course, the Commander eventually forbids the surgery ("I have to speak for the parents, because no one else will!") and of course the doctor does it anyway. The speeches they give each other are exquisite: we have never seen Sinclair this fired-up about anything, and the Doctor literally lights up the screen with his righteous indignation. The best part was when Sinclair demands to know who ever asked the Doctor to play god, and the Doctor said "everybody who comes through my door." His beliefs are strong and his temper his hot and he's ready to throw away his entire career to stand up for what he believes in, and it's a stunning pair of scenes.
My own beliefs on this issue are muddy. I'm an active member of the LDS church, and while we have a strong tradition of faith healing we also embrace science, and don't forbid any particular form of treatment. Our current Prophet is a heart surgeon, for crying out loud. And so while I was able to see the parent's point, and sympathize with their faith, I was also incredible uncomfortable with the idea of letting a child die. On the other hand: what if it was something I DID have a religious objection to? What if my son was going to die, and the only way to save his life was for him to shoot someone in the face? That's not a great example, because it's a poor one-to-one correlation: the family in the show believed that surgery would cause their son to lose his soul, whereas murdering someone would cause my son to lose his soul (so to speak) PLUS it would end somebody else's life. But I hope you can see what I'm getting at: would you want your child's life to be saved, if the only way to do it would be to damn them to hell? Are a few more years on Earth worth an eternity away from Heaven?
This is the kind of SF I love, and the kind of SF that we don't see enough of: probing questions about people and belief and the way we interact with the world. Big, ugly "What If?" questions that cause us to take a second look at the things we think are true. And in light of that, I was sickened but delighted when the show took the next step and said "Look, Doctor, you can't just eff around with somebody's most deeply-held beliefs without some serious repercussions, you stupid flaming bonehead." It should come as no surprise that the parents collect their child, take him home, and euthanize him. "It's okay, doctor, it wasn't him anyway, it was a demon." We all saw this coming a mile away, except apparently the doctor--and also, for some reason, the doctor's assistant, who literally spent the entire episode researching the alien's culture and somehow failed to spot this glaring possibility. The doctor himself gets that particular hero moment, when he scans her files for about five seconds and immediately sees what she didn't, and races through the halls to stop the killing and gets there too late.
This was a Good Story Development. The Doctor was so convinced that he and his worldview were "right," and that the way he chose to do things was "good," and then he was forced to confront the devastating truth that screwing around with other people's cultures is neither easy nor safe. It was a direct counterpoint to so many old Star Trek episodes, in the same way that Enterprise's "Cogenitor" was. ("Cogenitor," by the way, is the best Enterprise episode, bar none. And it stands pretty well on its own, so check it out even if you hate Enterprise.)
But here's where BELIEVERS falls apart, and here's why I started this review by saying my feelings were mixed: the next scene, where the doctor and the commander have to deal with the child's death, is a disaster. First off: the doctor should have been fired, full stop. There is no reason, stated or implied, why he should be allowed to keep his job after flagrantly defying the wishes of the family, the patient himself, his own superior officer, and a mandate designed to maintain peace on the station and in the galaxy. I mean, I'm glad he's still around, because he's probably my favorite character on the show so far, but the show offers no plausible explanation for him keeping his job beyond "well he's a main character so what are we going to do?" And then, just to make it worse, the show offers no kind of fallout from the decision, no final reckoning, no ultimate commentary on what happened or why. Were they trying to say what the first few minutes of the episode looked like they were saying: that the religious family was wrong and stupid and (in the end) evil? Were they trying to say that the doctor was wrong, or that he was right, or that he had learned anything along the way? There's something to be said for ambiguity, especially when you ask big questions like this that don't have easy answers. But there's a difference between "ambiguity" and "shrugging helplessly at the audience." It felt like the writers were standing in the one unpainted section of a freshly-painted floor, looking around in surprise and then gesturing wildly for the director to roll credits. Was the doctor's decision wrong? Then give him some consequences. Was the doctor's decision right? Then show us how, because nothing in the episode suggests that he is.
There are people out there who will read this and say "obviously the doctor was right, because letting someone die for religious reasons is unequivocally terrible." But there are just as many people who would say "the doctor was wrong, because destroying someone's life because you think your own religion is more important than theirs is unequivocally terrible." And I don't think you can ignore either half of that argument because that's the whole point of the episode: if either side was clearly "right," the episode itself would be a waste of time. Now: I should be clear here that I am not arguing in favor of the final euthenasia: killing a child, even if you think he's hopelessly corrupted, is not something I'm willing to get behind. That's one of the ways in which I think "Cogenitor" does a better job with this issue, because the final tragedy points clearly back at the would-be hero, without any child-murder to give you an easy out.
The very final scene almost--almost--makes it work. It doesn't, but at least they tried. The paper-thin B-plot going on in the background of the episode shows Ivanova going off on an aggressively pointless mission with a group of starfighters, during which, if you pay close attention, you realize that she is breaking some rule or other. It hardly matters, because the story is short and boring, but then in the end you realize it was all intended to serve as a counterpoint to the main story: Ivanova broke the rules and everyone was happy, while Doctor Franklin broke the rules and everything went to hell. And I suppose that counts as an ending, but it's weak, and I wanted more.
BELIEVERS asked a thorny question, waded much deeper into the thorns than I expected, and then woke up in the shower and asked if it was all dream. For a show that sells itself as "Star Trek but with consequences," this was an incredibly frustrating entry.
This is the very first episode I ever saw, and I came in during the middle, so I thought this show was completely wacked. It was a couple years before I returned to it.
ReplyDeleteBut I think the point is that the doctor’s beliefs and the family’s beliefs are equally valid.