+- Spooks Forum (http://www.spooksforum.co.uk)
+-- Forum: MI5 Operations (/forum-3.html)
+--- Forum: Character & Actor Discussion (/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: [spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3) (/thread-1474.html)
RE: [spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3) - binkie - 31-01-2011 08:16 PM
(30-01-2011 11:55 AM)Silktie Wrote: ...what for one viewer might be a betrayal of the established function of a character, might be a fascinating new facet of the same character being developed for another viewer.
Quite right. And just as well, or we might as well be watching Diagnosis Murder
(30-01-2011 11:55 AM)Silktie Wrote: One person’s view is not more correct than the other, which is why I, for one, like to see different views expressed. As long as none of us expect everyone else to hold the exact same view that we do.
Well, I’m sorry, but if people aren’t going to agree with me about everything all the time, I can’t see the point of coming back here
Honestly, I almost never expect people to agree with me in real life: it’s sort of the definition of my existence. I really enjoy this forum for exactly the reasons you outline. The friendly and constructive discussions about tiny differences of interpretation and character motive are genuinely fascinating, and endlessly thought-provoking. It’s all good.
(30-01-2011 11:55 AM)Silktie Wrote: So Binkie, you can stop apologising for the views you express here. The Harry fans on this forum are quite a friendly bunch.
(30-01-2011 11:55 AM)Silktie Wrote: ... I didn’t expect to enjoy watching Harry experiencing an existential crisis the way he did in season 9, but I did. It’s all in the execution I suppose, so I'll keep an open mind.
Oh! I love a bit of existential meltdown in a week-night drama. For added entertainment value, I like to imagine Harry in a black turtleneck with a Gauloise on the go
(31-01-2011 02:49 PM)HellsBells Wrote: I have been thinking about Harry quite a lot lately, and why I like his character...
(31-01-2011 07:30 PM)A Cousin Wrote: Harry is just this side of a cold blooded murderer when it comes to Kachimov and Blake. I think he did those things all by his little self, with a bit of back up from Ros in the case of Kachimov. I cannot defend those actions because to me, they are reprehensible, and not a part of Harry that I like.
(31-01-2011 07:58 PM)loladom Wrote: What I think is interesting is that Harry has done some dubious things and yet, for some people, the very fact he's done them enhances is appeal as the hero. I differ from A Cousin's opinion in that I can forgive Harry for them, understand his motivations and almost say 'what a man' for doing them. And this really surprises me as my personal ethics would not normally condone eye for an eye...
The WHY of Harry's appeal (Peter Firth aside) has become much more troublesome - and interesting - in recent seasons, hasn’t it? I think it’s much more rewarding to consider the ‘heroic’ appeal of a complex character like Harry than it is to accept unquestioningly a down-the-line Good Guy. Where do we, as an audience, think the line is for Harry? Does he know when he crosses it? Or does his ability to justify his actions in the context of some moral retribution for his damaged team (ego?) mean he does not recognise the line? Would we admire him as much as we do if he stepped back more often, or more willingly, from dubious actions, like the killing of Kachimov? Is it the relative rarity of actions like these which highlight all the more his otherwise consistently utilitarian morality?
I suppose an obvious contemporary model for the question of Harry’s moral accommodation is that of the mainstream media treatment of Julian Assange. Because he has, at one turn, acted in a way most liberal-minded and left-leaning commentators find admirable and brave (Wikileaks), the response to accusations of his having acted, at another turn, in a way these same commentators find reprehensible (sexual assault) has been largely one of dismissal and ridicule. He cannot, it seems, be allowed to be capable of having accomplished something ‘good’ while also being ‘bad’. The conclusion is that a heroic action requires a hero to enact it, or the action is not heroic – it is tainted by the lack of heroism in its enactor.
RE: [spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3) - Tea Lady - 31-01-2011 09:19 PM
(31-01-2011 02:49 PM)HellsBells Wrote: I have been thinking about Harry quite a lot lately, and why I like his character. Something occurred to me that Harry can be a cold-blooded murderer. Think back to Kachimov in 7.2. Kachimov was unarmed, defenseless and willing to come-over to the British side, but Harry shot him in cold-blood, when Kachimov's only crime had been not sharing information with Harry. And in 9.2, Harry murdered Nicholas Blake, again Blake was unarmed and defenseless, and Harry pre-planned this murder. When did Harry become judge, jury and executioner?
Really do love Harry, honest.....
I don't think Harry is a murderer. A killer, yes. Some may argue there is not much of a difference, but Harry deprived these people of their life in revenge for what they had become, and for what they did to those Harry loved. In a friendly way he loved Adam and Ros. His actions were not evil, but necessary to keep the equilibrium.
I think Harry believes they are all soldiers in a war, therefore killing on both sides happens, and that's that. I also believe this also has something to do with the horrible death of his friend Bill in Northern Ireland. Harry did nothing, for whatever reason. He can no longer live with doing nothing.
RE: [spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3) - Byatil - 31-01-2011 09:37 PM
I find Harry's character interesting because he seems comfortable with "playing God", so to speak. Of course, the job of the security service is to determine who should live and who should die for "the greater good". But for the greater good of whom? Well, Britain, of course. But is that really a just morality? Murdering others to heighten your own sense of security?
Murdering Katchimov was, many of you suggest, the "right" thing to do. What would have happened if Harry had not killed him? More interestingly, what gave Harry the authority to kill him? It is arguable that Katchimov posed no real threat towards Britain, but only to Lucas and possibly Elizavyeta. Why then, does Harry have the authority to value one life above another? Why does he have the "right" to "play God"? It's an interesting question. We, as the audience, watch Harry murder people, and consider it to be "the right thing to do". I wonder if one day someone will decide that murdering Harry is "the right thing to do", and how people will feel about that?
Harry is a fascinating character because he constantly raises that question of morality. He is, in some ways, a "Godfather" figure within Section D. He calls the shots; he defies his superiors. Is Harry somewhat a "rogue agent"? His rapport with whomever the current Home Secretary may be seems to be the only thing keeping him employed sometimes; remember how Andrew Lawrence told Ros he wanted to get rid of Harry and put her in charge because he "reminded [him] of [his] father"? I thought that was an interesting observation on the Hom Sec's part, actually. Harry being the father figure from whom one can never attain pride or approval.
I wonder if Harry actually believes in his cause, or if he's just been in the job so long that he accepts it as something he "has to do". Some of you have commented that he seems to "lose a piece of his soul" every time he murders someone - implying that he feels he has done something "wrong" that is worthy of guilt.
I fear I may be incredibly biased as I tend to believe that Britain is fuelled by incredibly selfish motives. It's a question of morality, more than anything, which seems to be ingrained and displayed so clearly through Harry's character. Obviously, his most recent moral dilemma was Albany. He happily gave it away to save Ruth's life, but I wonder if he would have done the same if Albany had been functional? Does Britain always come first for Harry?
Well, I feel this post has been long and rambling enough, so I'll finish there
I look forward to any responses!(31-01-2011 09:19 PM)Tea Lady Wrote: I don't think Harry is a murderer. A killer, yes. Some may argue there is not much of a difference, but Harry deprived these people of their life in revenge for what they had become, and for what they did to those Harry loved. In a friendly way he loved Adam and Ros. His actions were not evil, but necessary to keep the equilibrium.
I think Harry believes they are all soldiers in a war, therefore killing on both sides happens, and that's that. I also believe this also has something to do with the horrible death of his friend Bill in Northern Ireland. Harry did nothing, for whatever reason. He can no longer live with doing nothing.
This is interesting, the emboldened passage in particular
Harry was a soldier before he joined MI5, correct? It does therefore make sense that he should still have some of that old combat-mentality. He may not necessarily like killing, but he feels it necessary to achieve his aims. Does that make Harry an inherently selfish character, or just a man doing what he believes is "right"?
RE: [spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3) - Silktie - 01-02-2011 07:02 AM
Ooh, interesting discussion. For me, Harry is very much a product of his environment. His murky moral view of the world has been shaped by spending more than thirty years of his life serving a master (the British state) that has often demanded of him to do reprehensible things. He serves a state that can order him to blow up a train full of civilians in another country, or to have one of his men (Danny) assassinate a scientist that was producing a biological weapon, for instance. He lives in a world where you can't rely on the system to deliver justice for wrongs done, and where you are fighting an enemy that sometimes only understand one language - blood for blood, in Harry's own words.
Interestingly, I don't think it is only in the later seasons that Harry shows this tendency of delivering summary justice. Remember how he had Helen's killer taken care of in season 1, even after he was ordered not to do so? And he tells Johnny Cash, also in season 1, that he always does his own dirty work.
As was said above, he judges his own and other people's actions against one yard-stick: whether it is for the good of the country. He justifies Kachimov's killing as a message to the Russians in the only language they'll understand - blood for blood. He sees it as a graphic illustration to an enemy of Britain that you can't attempt to blow up scores of innocent people on Britain's streets and expect not to be held accountable for it. The same with Blake. In the same manner, he accepts that Blake has the right to order his and his team's assassination in order to safeguard the interests and safety of the state. He lives by the same rules he demands of others.
Does he have the right to do so under the real world's accepted moral guidelines? Absolutely not. But is it acceptable within the rules of the Spooks world as it has been presented to us from day one? Yes. I think that is why so many people have no problem with the questionable things Harry does; we got to know him in a world where normal moral guidelines don't apply, and where the difference between 'good' and 'bad' is broadly defined according to what is done in the name of protecting the state and its people, and what is not.
RE: [spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3) - Silktie - 14-02-2011 05:46 AM
Does Harry speak Russian? I seem to recall that he can a bit, but I'm not sure whether that's a fact or whether I read it in some fanfic.
RE: [spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3) - A Cousin - 14-02-2011 03:11 PM
Form the Personnel Files, when Harry applied in 1977, the languages listed are: French - fluent, German - fluent, Hebrew - competent, Spanish - competent, and Arabic - smattering.
Although, a lot can happen in 30 some-odd years. I would buy that he picked up Russian in that time by necessity. At least enough to be competent. He knew enough to live and love during Sugarhorse. Maybe Hugo Ross taught him a thing or two?
RE: [spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3) - HellsBells - 15-02-2011 02:36 PM
And didn't Harry correctly translate Bernard Qualtrough (7.4) book title about how to get 100 eggs from one hen, or something like that!
RE: [spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3) - Tea Lady - 15-02-2011 10:23 PM
(15-02-2011 02:36 PM)HellsBells Wrote: And didn't Harry correctly translate Bernard Qualtrough (7.4) book title about how to get 100 eggs from one hen, or something like that!
Haha, very good HellsBells.
I would guess he knows enough Russian to get by. Wasn't he stationed in Russia with that Maria woman? Again, that could be fanfic I am thinking of. Harry used to lie in bed and read Gorky Park to her?
RE: [spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3) - HellsBells - 16-02-2011 02:25 PM
(15-02-2011 10:23 PM)Tea Lady Wrote: I would guess he knows enough Russian to get by. Wasn't he stationed in Russia with that Maria woman? Again, that could be fanfic I am thinking of. Harry used to lie in bed and read Gorky Park to her?
I think that might be a fanfic Tea Lady, I haven't heard of that before!!!
Interesting idea though.
RE: [spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3) - FATBOY - 16-02-2011 10:45 PM
Think Harry will survive - he must!
Is there an analogy here between PF and Alec Guinness of 'Star Wars' and 'Soldier, Sailor, Tinker, Spy' fame?