Science fiction television has never really done a good job of portraying the arts. STNG had a rather pretentious view of the arts, showcased by numerous allusions to Shakespeare and company. Babylon 5, meanwhile, while art itself, did not do so well in those episodes that dealt with literarily significant figures. Take for example, Michael York's truly dreadful performance in "A Late Delivery from Avalon" and the equally putrid retelling of the Grail legend that wasted the talent of all-time great actor David Warner. Then there's Commander Kang (or was it Chang, I can't remember) in Star Trek VI, with his mouthed renditions of the Great Bard's works.
Perhaps the best series for dealing with the arts has been the new Doctor Who, which has offered entertaining and original takes on Dickens, Shakespeare, and Agatha Cristie. Also well done was the STNG episodes concerning Mark Twain, which featured a cameo from my all-time favorite author, Jack London (not in the flesh, of course.). In general, however, sci-fi television does not assume a high level of intelligence on the part of its audiences, though it does so more than most other genres.
All this begs the question: What science fiction series do you consider art? For me, Blake's 7, Babylon 5, and Battlestar Galactica are all definitely forms of artistic television, going beyond the simple boundaries of mere entertainment. Firefly, Farscape, Doctor Who, The Twilight Zone, Max Headroom, Dollhouse, and a few other series also deserve attention by literary and film critics. But as my students always remind me, art is in the eyes of the beholder. Perhaps every series can be viewed as art, even Buck Rogers. Well, then again, maybe not . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment