[spoilers] Sir Harry Pearce - Return of the Jedi (#3)

[binkie]

(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.