In my opinion, this episode, though bit rubbish, entirely justifies its existence by providing me with nice background wallpaper of Blake and Avon lying on the ground clutching their liberator guns!
Blake tries to rescue the daughter of his “father’s brother” and seems to show an interest in her that could be interpreted as romantic. I suspect that this “father’s brother” circumlocution was the result of someone being a bit embarrassed by this aspect of the plot, though clearly not embarrassed enough for a rewrite! I think for most people the cousin thing is rather amusing, but I was a bit surprised to find that some people, often Americans, are rather shocked by it. After a bit of googling, I’ve found that America is the only Western country where such relationships are actually illegal. I suppose I’m used to the idea, because I’ve come across such marriages in the biographies of 19th century gentry types a fair number of times, although they are obviously much rarer now. It does make me wonder what happens to immigrants to America that come from areas where cousin marriage is endemic, I must say!
As far as the age difference is concerned, imdb.com suggests that the actress that plays Inga looks younger than she actually is. She is only 5 years younger than GT. Not that this helps particularly, given that Blake was supposed to be a boy when on Exbar! In any case, it seems rebelliousness runs in the family and I wonder if “she meant a lot to me once” has as much to do with Blake’s political development as his romantic. Let’s hope so, anyway! After all, the kiss looks pretty chaste and there isn’t much chemistry between them. Perhaps Uncle Ushton and Inga had a big influence on Blake’s politics.
I’ve always thought that shouty, angry, thuggish Travis II (leaving aside the acting) was more plausible as a “vengeful type” than Travis I. I’ve had a bit of a google for articles on revenge and personality and it seems that I am justified in thinking this. Apparently vengeful behaviour is correlated with an inclination towards anger in everyday life (as well as such things as low empathy and paranoia about other people’s bad intentions). I know a lot of people prefer their screen villains to be suave, sophisticated and subtle (I’m reminded of a lot of Dr Who fans liking for old incarnations of the Master) but I think that you are definitely getting entertainment value rather than realism with these characters. I strongly suspect these types of smooth character to be cultural descendants of the kind of aristocratic villains that respectable middle class 19th century theatre goers liked to boo!
More evidence for significant support for Blake in this episode, as well as tight Federation control of the media, since Joban makes it clear that Blake’s exploits are widely known among all classes of Federation society and many consider him to be a hero, despite the fact that his exploits don’t feature in public viscasts.
if “she meant a lot to me once” has as much to do with Blake’s political development as his romantic I wonder why Ushton (and Inga, unless she was born there?) got sent to Exbar in the first place. Are “grade four offenders” those that have committed a “category four crime” (such as going outside was said to be in TWB)? I wonder if the ”special privileges” are a concession to their grade/powerful relatives (how influential were the 'Blake-clan' before falling into disgrace?) or if they were being held as hostages (as it were) against someone's good behaviour? (Obviously not Blake's, as they are still alive.) Perhaps there's some hidden political significance to them that Blake doesn't mention and thinks is of importance for the rebellion - in which case I could imagine him exaggerating his emotional attachment to Inga to the crew (which could explain the strange wording and general wtf:ness), maybe thinking it'll make them more willing to cooperate than the real reason... *speculation running wild*
shouty, angry, thuggish Travis II (leaving aside the acting) was more plausible as a “vengeful type” than Travis I I could see it as a natural progression from one to the other, with his repeated defeats progressively eroding his self-respect to the point that he no longer cares about showing constraint in the name of dignity. I think his obsession with Blake at this point is no longer about the initial injury as much as a focal point for every single thing that's gone wrong with his life since then...
Blake tries to rescue the daughter of his “father’s brother” and seems to show an interest in her that could be interpreted as romantic. I suspect that this “father’s brother” circumlocution was the result of someone being a bit embarrassed by this aspect of the plot, though clearly not embarrassed enough for a rewrite! I think for most people the cousin thing is rather amusing, but I was a bit surprised to find that some people, often Americans, are rather shocked by it. After a bit of googling, I’ve found that America is the only Western country where such relationships are actually illegal. I suppose I’m used to the idea, because I’ve come across such marriages in the biographies of 19th century gentry types a fair number of times, although they are obviously much rarer now. It does make me wonder what happens to immigrants to America that come from areas where cousin marriage is endemic, I must say!
As far as the age difference is concerned, imdb.com suggests that the actress that plays Inga looks younger than she actually is. She is only 5 years younger than GT. Not that this helps particularly, given that Blake was supposed to be a boy when on Exbar! In any case, it seems rebelliousness runs in the family and I wonder if “she meant a lot to me once” has as much to do with Blake’s political development as his romantic. Let’s hope so, anyway! After all, the kiss looks pretty chaste and there isn’t much chemistry between them. Perhaps Uncle Ushton and Inga had a big influence on Blake’s politics.
I’ve always thought that shouty, angry, thuggish Travis II (leaving aside the acting) was more plausible as a “vengeful type” than Travis I. I’ve had a bit of a google for articles on revenge and personality and it seems that I am justified in thinking this. Apparently vengeful behaviour is correlated with an inclination towards anger in everyday life (as well as such things as low empathy and paranoia about other people’s bad intentions). I know a lot of people prefer their screen villains to be suave, sophisticated and subtle (I’m reminded of a lot of Dr Who fans liking for old incarnations of the Master) but I think that you are definitely getting entertainment value rather than realism with these characters. I strongly suspect these types of smooth character to be cultural descendants of the kind of aristocratic villains that respectable middle class 19th century theatre goers liked to boo!
More evidence for significant support for Blake in this episode, as well as tight Federation control of the media, since Joban makes it clear that Blake’s exploits are widely known among all classes of Federation society and many consider him to be a hero, despite the fact that his exploits don’t feature in public viscasts.
Reply
I wonder why Ushton (and Inga, unless she was born there?) got sent to Exbar in the first place. Are “grade four offenders” those that have committed a “category four crime” (such as going outside was said to be in TWB)? I wonder if the ”special privileges” are a concession to their grade/powerful relatives (how influential were the 'Blake-clan' before falling into disgrace?) or if they were being held as hostages (as it were) against someone's good behaviour? (Obviously not Blake's, as they are still alive.) Perhaps there's some hidden political significance to them that Blake doesn't mention and thinks is of importance for the rebellion - in which case I could imagine him exaggerating his emotional attachment to Inga to the crew (which could explain the strange wording and general wtf:ness), maybe thinking it'll make them more willing to cooperate than the real reason... *speculation running wild*
shouty, angry, thuggish Travis II (leaving aside the acting) was more plausible as a “vengeful type” than Travis I
I could see it as a natural progression from one to the other, with his repeated defeats progressively eroding his self-respect to the point that he no longer cares about showing constraint in the name of dignity. I think his obsession with Blake at this point is no longer about the initial injury as much as a focal point for every single thing that's gone wrong with his life since then...
Reply
Leave a comment