JM: Characters who anchor shows with large ensemble casts (not necessarily the leads): discuss
A true challenge to ponder.
There is one who immediately comes to mind, but then I’m biased in his regard. Babylon 5 changed not just its leading man, but also other important cast members (and each time the character wasn’t recast, but a new character with similar, though not identical narrative function brought in), which in retrospect led to JMS remarking he had “trapdoors” for most of the characters, and that there had been only three whom he regarded as truly irreplaceable, i.e. if the actors for some reason had suddenly become unavailable, he could not have replaced either them or the characters, and the story would have collapsed. These three were Londo, G’Kar and Delenn.
I’m not surprised he regarded Sheridan as ultimately expendable, btw. Not just because of my repeated theory you could have left Sheridan dead at Z’Ha’dum without significantly changing the rest of the show, with Delenn and Ivanova sharing his plot functions. Also because Sheridan isn’t a unique-to-B5 hero; he’s a very recognizable type. (I don’t mean this negatively; this is what is needed of him in the show, and Bruce Boxleitner rises to the actorly occasion when Sheridan is going through something atypical.) Delenn: Delenn is also the leading lady of the how, the most prominent female character. But her union with Sheridan isn’t just a leading man/leading lady thing; it symbolizes, as her union with Sinclair would have, had the show not changed leading men, Minbari/Human reconciliation. Also, Delenn, both in regards to Minbari politics and Alliance politics, is a key political force, and it’s hard to imagine who could have taken her place in pushing those storylines if, say, Mira Furlan had returned to breaking-apart Yugoslavia after season 2, or something like that. Lennier couldn’t have (unlike Delenn, he’s not majorly responsible for the Earth/Minbari war, and also, he lacks the hardcore conviction of being the answer to prophecy); I’m amusing myself with trying to plot an AU where Neroon gets his epiphany a bit sooner and for some reason is forced to take Delenn’s place as ambassador, which could have been, hm, interesting. But kidding aside, it wouldn’t have really worked in canon.
Still, I would argue that if anyone out of its big ensemble anchors Babylon 5, it’s not Delenn. That role is shared by Londo and G’Kar, and if you absolutely have to narrow it down, Londo (without Londo’s choices, there is no major story arc through five seasons) , though it’s really the balance of Londo and G’Kar, and their intertwined arcs, that elevate Babylon 5 to the unique show it is. If you want a really long and detailed argument about all that makes Londo quintessential, here is my essay about him. To sum up: it’s not a coincidence Londo’s is the narrative voice we hear opening the show’s pilot. He’s never the leading man, let alone the most likeable one. But he anchors the show, and if B5 can be said to be any one character’s story in particular, which of course is selling short the way it’s many characters’ story, than that character would be Londo Mollari.
Meanwhile, I’d have a hard time identifying the character who anchors, say, The Wire, which definitely qualifies as a huge ensemble show. Because each season tells a different story with shifting emphasis, the characters who are hugely important in one can show up rarely, or not at all, in the next. (I suppose a case could be made for McNulty based on the way the pilot sets things up and the fact we end with the image of him and Baltimore in the season finale, but he has all of two scenes in season 4, regarded by many as the best of the seasons.) The breakout character would be easier to choose - Omar, I’d say, though feel free to argue - but a breakout character is something else. (Breakout character, to me: the character who attracts so much attention that even non-viewers vaguely know, or think they do, who he/she is via general pop culture osmosis. This breakout character is usually NEVER the lead or even the most prominent supporting character, at least not initially, and he’s more likely to be an occasional guest star than a regular. More often than not, the narrative DOESN’T depend on him or her, though this may change due to popularity at a later point.) I’m going to weasel out and declare Baltimore itself is the character which anchors The Wire, since the show is explicitly meant as a portrayal of the city, and, while it says a lot of things that apply to society beyond Baltimore, could not possibly transferred to another location without losing what made it so great.
A third example: Blake’s 7 as a show where something happened which in many a fandom a vocal part of fandom loudly wishes for - the (more or less) hero of the show who has noble ideals is written out (due to the actor leaving), and the morally ambiguous snarky cynic becomes the leading man.
This did not improve the show.
No, really. I mean, I like some season 3 and season 4 episodes. But it’s also evident, even in s3, that both Chris Boucher and Terry Nation had a big narrative problem without Blake: how to justify that Avon, now that his self proclaimed goal of wanting the Liberator to himself, Blake-free, with no Blake to push for political struggle around is fulfilled, doesn’t simply take the ship and departs into wealthy retirement, never to bother the Federation again. The Blake/Avon relationship was already slashy when they are on the screen together, but giving Avon an obsession with finding Blake as the late s3 ends up doing was certainly a gift in that regard, and it was born from said narrative problem. It doesn’t completely solve it, though. Large parts of s3 are meandering, ditto s4, and it’s not a coincidence that the two times when it feels we’re going somewhere narratively are the respective season finales when Blake is back (sort of). Moreover, promoting Avon to leading man and removing Blake as an on screen presence from the show altered the character dynamics in a way that actually anti-fannish wishfulfillment. The Avon and Vila relationship was arguably nearly as popular/as popular as the Blake and Avon one, but with Avon now in the leading man position, scriptwriter Robert Holmes’ favourite scenario where they team up behind Blake’s back was gone, not to mention that while Avon had employed sarcasm about Vila before, now the put downs had a crueler edge and weren’t give and take anymore, and new character Tarrant treated Vila even worse (which Blake never had done). Whether or not you read the Blake and Avon relationship as slashy, it had been tense and a constant emotional power struggle, which Blake usually won, but barely, and not always. Meanwhile, Tarrant was simply outclassed, and his few attempts to lead usually happened because Avon couldn’t be bothered. The one exciting new dynamic the later seasons added, between Avon and Servalan, was limited in that they couldn’t meet too often without Servalan losing her credibility as a threat. In conclusion: Avon was the breakout character, and was and is hands down the most popular one. But in my opinion, seasons 3 and 4 prove that it had actually been Blake, the leading character, who also anchored the show.
Three random examples, of course. But if I have a conclusion from them to draw, it would be this: the character who anchors the show, if we’re talking from a Doylist, not Watsonian perspective (which I’ve been doing in this post: I think from a Watsonian perspective you’d look for every different criteria, so, for example, you could argue that Guinan is the character in TNG who for the other characters anchors them, because she offers them a safe place to wind down), is the one without whom the story would collapse or at the very least lose its direction.
The other days
This entry was originally posted at http://selenak.dreamwidth.org/1135679.html. Comment there or here, as you wish.
There is one who immediately comes to mind, but then I’m biased in his regard. Babylon 5 changed not just its leading man, but also other important cast members (and each time the character wasn’t recast, but a new character with similar, though not identical narrative function brought in), which in retrospect led to JMS remarking he had “trapdoors” for most of the characters, and that there had been only three whom he regarded as truly irreplaceable, i.e. if the actors for some reason had suddenly become unavailable, he could not have replaced either them or the characters, and the story would have collapsed. These three were Londo, G’Kar and Delenn.
I’m not surprised he regarded Sheridan as ultimately expendable, btw. Not just because of my repeated theory you could have left Sheridan dead at Z’Ha’dum without significantly changing the rest of the show, with Delenn and Ivanova sharing his plot functions. Also because Sheridan isn’t a unique-to-B5 hero; he’s a very recognizable type. (I don’t mean this negatively; this is what is needed of him in the show, and Bruce Boxleitner rises to the actorly occasion when Sheridan is going through something atypical.) Delenn: Delenn is also the leading lady of the how, the most prominent female character. But her union with Sheridan isn’t just a leading man/leading lady thing; it symbolizes, as her union with Sinclair would have, had the show not changed leading men, Minbari/Human reconciliation. Also, Delenn, both in regards to Minbari politics and Alliance politics, is a key political force, and it’s hard to imagine who could have taken her place in pushing those storylines if, say, Mira Furlan had returned to breaking-apart Yugoslavia after season 2, or something like that. Lennier couldn’t have (unlike Delenn, he’s not majorly responsible for the Earth/Minbari war, and also, he lacks the hardcore conviction of being the answer to prophecy); I’m amusing myself with trying to plot an AU where Neroon gets his epiphany a bit sooner and for some reason is forced to take Delenn’s place as ambassador, which could have been, hm, interesting. But kidding aside, it wouldn’t have really worked in canon.
Still, I would argue that if anyone out of its big ensemble anchors Babylon 5, it’s not Delenn. That role is shared by Londo and G’Kar, and if you absolutely have to narrow it down, Londo (without Londo’s choices, there is no major story arc through five seasons) , though it’s really the balance of Londo and G’Kar, and their intertwined arcs, that elevate Babylon 5 to the unique show it is. If you want a really long and detailed argument about all that makes Londo quintessential, here is my essay about him. To sum up: it’s not a coincidence Londo’s is the narrative voice we hear opening the show’s pilot. He’s never the leading man, let alone the most likeable one. But he anchors the show, and if B5 can be said to be any one character’s story in particular, which of course is selling short the way it’s many characters’ story, than that character would be Londo Mollari.
Meanwhile, I’d have a hard time identifying the character who anchors, say, The Wire, which definitely qualifies as a huge ensemble show. Because each season tells a different story with shifting emphasis, the characters who are hugely important in one can show up rarely, or not at all, in the next. (I suppose a case could be made for McNulty based on the way the pilot sets things up and the fact we end with the image of him and Baltimore in the season finale, but he has all of two scenes in season 4, regarded by many as the best of the seasons.) The breakout character would be easier to choose - Omar, I’d say, though feel free to argue - but a breakout character is something else. (Breakout character, to me: the character who attracts so much attention that even non-viewers vaguely know, or think they do, who he/she is via general pop culture osmosis. This breakout character is usually NEVER the lead or even the most prominent supporting character, at least not initially, and he’s more likely to be an occasional guest star than a regular. More often than not, the narrative DOESN’T depend on him or her, though this may change due to popularity at a later point.) I’m going to weasel out and declare Baltimore itself is the character which anchors The Wire, since the show is explicitly meant as a portrayal of the city, and, while it says a lot of things that apply to society beyond Baltimore, could not possibly transferred to another location without losing what made it so great.
A third example: Blake’s 7 as a show where something happened which in many a fandom a vocal part of fandom loudly wishes for - the (more or less) hero of the show who has noble ideals is written out (due to the actor leaving), and the morally ambiguous snarky cynic becomes the leading man.
This did not improve the show.
No, really. I mean, I like some season 3 and season 4 episodes. But it’s also evident, even in s3, that both Chris Boucher and Terry Nation had a big narrative problem without Blake: how to justify that Avon, now that his self proclaimed goal of wanting the Liberator to himself, Blake-free, with no Blake to push for political struggle around is fulfilled, doesn’t simply take the ship and departs into wealthy retirement, never to bother the Federation again. The Blake/Avon relationship was already slashy when they are on the screen together, but giving Avon an obsession with finding Blake as the late s3 ends up doing was certainly a gift in that regard, and it was born from said narrative problem. It doesn’t completely solve it, though. Large parts of s3 are meandering, ditto s4, and it’s not a coincidence that the two times when it feels we’re going somewhere narratively are the respective season finales when Blake is back (sort of). Moreover, promoting Avon to leading man and removing Blake as an on screen presence from the show altered the character dynamics in a way that actually anti-fannish wishfulfillment. The Avon and Vila relationship was arguably nearly as popular/as popular as the Blake and Avon one, but with Avon now in the leading man position, scriptwriter Robert Holmes’ favourite scenario where they team up behind Blake’s back was gone, not to mention that while Avon had employed sarcasm about Vila before, now the put downs had a crueler edge and weren’t give and take anymore, and new character Tarrant treated Vila even worse (which Blake never had done). Whether or not you read the Blake and Avon relationship as slashy, it had been tense and a constant emotional power struggle, which Blake usually won, but barely, and not always. Meanwhile, Tarrant was simply outclassed, and his few attempts to lead usually happened because Avon couldn’t be bothered. The one exciting new dynamic the later seasons added, between Avon and Servalan, was limited in that they couldn’t meet too often without Servalan losing her credibility as a threat. In conclusion: Avon was the breakout character, and was and is hands down the most popular one. But in my opinion, seasons 3 and 4 prove that it had actually been Blake, the leading character, who also anchored the show.
Three random examples, of course. But if I have a conclusion from them to draw, it would be this: the character who anchors the show, if we’re talking from a Doylist, not Watsonian perspective (which I’ve been doing in this post: I think from a Watsonian perspective you’d look for every different criteria, so, for example, you could argue that Guinan is the character in TNG who for the other characters anchors them, because she offers them a safe place to wind down), is the one without whom the story would collapse or at the very least lose its direction.
The other days
This entry was originally posted at http://selenak.dreamwidth.org/1135679.html. Comment there or here, as you wish.