Couple of thoughts:
Read an interview recently with Tricia Helfer where she was asked whether she’d like to get to interact more with the other cast besides James Callis (Baltar). She said yes, she enjoyed the episode “Six Degrees of Separation” where another copy showed up and messed with the other crew, and she said she had a new plotline coming up she was really excited about that would give her this opportunity. I guess we know what it is now.
And re the emotional dichotomy of (1) a helpless prisoner experiencing horrifying abuse because (2) she’s a representative of an unsympathetic enemy with grotesque, genocidal objectives: The show is obviously asking us a complicated, difficult question. Are we supposed to somehow actually feel bad for a completely unforgivable (and inhuman) villain? Or can we condemn the tactics themselves as savage and indefensible solely on their merits while still feeling no sympathy for the individual they’re being done to?
This is simultaneously a fascinating and yet enormously dangerous choice, as the show risks alienating us from both sides of the conflict. This can have strange and unexpected effects in some viewers; for example, there’s a poster over on the aint-it-cool talkbalk boards who is arguing that Ron Moore, with this story, is attempting to “justify” rape as a military tactic. The poster apparently believes that it’s necessary to “choose sides” in a story, and since we obviously can’t choose the Cylon side, we’re forced to choose the human side, which means the show is saying “good guys can rape bad guys.” This is clearly a gross misreading of the story, but I think it arises directly from how conventional drama labels its heroes and villains, and how we thus emotionally identify with them. But that’s the risk when the storyteller makes dark, provocative choices; if you’re not careful, you make everybody a villain, and people start checking out as the story becomes an unpleasant grind. Hasn’t happened here yet, but that is a possible trap. Given the way the show has developed so far, I have faith they’ll recognize and avoid it, but nevertheless it should be pointed out that the trap is there.
But, all things considered, could this storyline be any more relevant to us in our modern age? Bottom line: can we be revolted by Abu Ghraib without “taking the terrorists’ side”? Galactica was already very good, but with this installment it’s making a bid to be one of the very best shows currently on the air.
I’m really hoping Roslin steps up with exactly this line of inquiry when the show returns. Seems to me she let herself be pushed aside this episode because of her respect for (and, as she said, unfamiliarity with) military protocol, and as I suggested above, the situation seems ripe for her to reassert her authority. I’d love to see how Cain responds to the President calling her on the carpet, pretty much with exactly the questions you’ve listed.
(However, I’ve decided that my initial take on how Roslin should insert herself into the conflict, above, isn’t dramatic or effective enough. Remember very early in the story, maybe even in the miniseries, when Colonial One showed up unannounced that one time, demanding to dock in Galactica’s bay? They could do the same thing here; Cain’s getting ready to pull the trigger on Adama’s vipers, and her ops guy says, “Sir, new contact. Colonial One is approaching. The President demands to see you, immediately.” And we have a moment where Cain looks into the faces of her crew to see whether she can get away with ordering them to shoot down the President’s ship; and based on their moment of hesitation we saw at the end of this show, she decides even that would be going too far. Conflict defused, temporarily. I’d totally buy that sequence.)
If someone thinks of something good during the next four months (sob), I’m pretty sure we’ll have “topics for occasional debate,” like the recent “what do we actually know?” thread. I know I’ll sure be thinking about it.
I need to talk to his publicist and see what’s up. I haven’t talked to her in a while.