More LFN episode thinking

[nell65]

Well, I finally staggered my way through S5..... and, well, after a multi-year viewing gap?

It's actually not nearly as bad as I remembered.

I mean, yeah the plot holes are still there, as is the total failure to keep track of time passing (or not), but, overall - the 8 episodes are actually a remarkable attempt (for LFN!) to sustain a single story arc that actually focuses on the Section facing an actual (and semi-coherent and not Cold War relic) terrorist group and Section failing to do it's job well -- or even at all - because of all the many, many, many internal problems that have been fully established in earlier seasons.

Section is failing because everyone inside it hates it, and no one trusts the Section or anyone else for anything, not even their dearest friends or their lovers, and everyone schemes and cheats and breaks the rules to protect themselves and those they love, and they have no real purpose in the world other than to run around putting out fires they don't understand.

It's actually an amazingly self-aware set up. Even Jones mocks himself for his faith in a super computer oracle.

They even have Nikita suffering from ongoing effects caused by the Gellman process. Yes - they solve it in a skeevy grave robbing plot solution of great ickinesss - but, they were actually aiming in the direction of acknowledging that fucking with people's body chemistry they way they fucked with Nikita's will have potentially long lasting consequences.

There plot thread that really is the clunkiest is how they deal with Nikita's hopes for a better Section. Particularly her wish for less constant surveillance of operatives and a decrease in abeyance as a strategy. The surveillance thing makes sense, it seems to piss people off without stopping people from spying on Section at the drop of a hat, successfully! But the abeyance thing is particularly bizarre because Nikita herself has personally killed, on screen, at least four-six operatives and watched Michael kill several more, in previous seasons, all without flinching - and through the rest of S5 she staunchly defends what Michael is doing -- laying out Section to be destroyed as a way to take out the Collective -- results in the deaths of scores of operatives.

Her dialogue in that exchange with O'Brien doesn't actually match her actions -- but there is no reason offered for her to be lying/playing a role. I'm not sure what the fix is - but, you know, if we can wish away Halle (I have no idea how to spell the character's name) shooting Paul in the chest - several times - surely I can work out something to get rid of a single incoherent line of dialogue....right? ;-)

Which brings me to Paul - I think he is great in this season. Really awesome and I love him more in this season than I did in, well, any of the earlier seasons. The Section he built is falling down around his ears because of weakness he ignored/encouraged or in some cases actively created and his self-pity and righteous indignation and refusal to take responsibility for any of it and his real, palpable melancholy and grief are wonderful. (And I had never really noticed that Paul's most macho live-action episode ever is the one RD directed. Which has nothing to do with the plot, but was interesting to note all the same.) And EG has some really wonderful scenes - I love him all broken and pissed off, hiding up in the perch and spitting at anyone who comes to try to talk to him.

And all of this leads in an odd way to thinking about the reboot. Sporadically, inconsistently, and without plan or forethought - the Section itself becomes such an important character/setting for what made LFN so intriguing for those (the few, the proud) who stuck out. Such that - it makes total sense that it was Michael who nearly destroyed it, and obviously could have it that was really his goal, and it is Nikita who stays behind to try to resurrect it.

But if the reboot is going to be about Nikita on the run with Michael still on the inside .... well, that's a definite reboot --- but not a very interesting one.

Comments

[madamedarque.livejournal.com]

You know, this is some pretty awesome meta! You've made me think about some things in different things--now I need to do a re-watch too. LOL.

veryone schemes and cheats and breaks the rules to protect themselves and those they love, and they have no real purpose in the world other than to run around putting out fires they don't understand.

YES. It really is a very tragic ending, because if you think about the origins of Section, founded by a woman who wanted to ~save the world~ and was willing to go to all sorts of measures to do it, and then taken over by Madeline and Paul who pushed the limits of human endurance even further...and now those people are gone (except for Paul, but I'll get to that later.) And S5 was basically validating all of our "this is crazy!" thoughts we had whenever Section did something particularly ruthless or in-humane to their operatives--because it's saying, "no, this did not actually work. They're paying for it now." So in that way, it's very dramatically satisfying.

But at the same time (and I think we've talked about this before) we were consistently told throughout the series that Section was "the best." And although we saw all the internal problems they had, it seemed quite a stretch for the formerly invincible Section to go down in flames against an enemy who I never found particularly convincing as a serious threat. But that's just because it wasn't set up properly--if the decline had been more gradual, it might have made more sense.

! But the abeyance thing is particularly bizarre because Nikita herself has personally killed, on screen, at least four-six operatives and watched Michael kill several more, in previous seasons, all without flinching

I know. I think the anti-abeyance thing was on principle. This is honestly what I didn't like about Nikita at times--she maintained these unrealistic ideals while at the same time engaging in the very behaviors she so railed against. I understand that she was coerced, but it can make her seem hypocritical some times.

Which brings me to Paul - I think he is great in this season.

Wow! This surprises me. I too love Paul this season--I love him for all the reasons you mentioned and because watching this man lose everything he ever worked for to the person he hated was pretty spectacular. But...I would never think a non-Paul fan would come to like him in this arc! I mean, aren't every single one of his negative characteristics--whinyness, tendency towards self-pity, refusal to take responsibility for his failures, etc.-- on display in this arc? Maybe it's your insider-outsider thing you told me about before--Paul is no longer the ultimate insider, and that allows you to sympathize with him?

But if the reboot is going to be about Nikita on the run with Michael still on the inside .... well, that's a definite reboot --- but not a very interesting one.

Yeah, I agree. I *loved* the ending--the Nikita who stands in the Perch at the end is a character I could like, because it seems like she's matured and taken on the responsibilities that no one will--it's a good concluding arc for the character. Doing a ~Nikita on the run~ story regresses her back to, I don't know, the hiatus between S1 and S2. And what was brilliant about the ending was that Michael, the heir apparent and regarded by most fans as the rightful Operations, should go free. It was a very effective reversing of roles--and apparently not palatable to the new show.

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

I, too, am bemused by your reaction to Paul in this season. LOL.

But if the reboot is going to be about Nikita on the run with Michael still on the inside .... well, that's a definite reboot --- but not a very interesting one.

But really, I think we have to stop thinking of it as even a reboot. They're keeping the general set-up of Section (which wasn't terribly original to begin with), a few character names and broad characteristics, but then they're obviously going to go off in totally different directions. As far as I'm concerned, it's truly another show and will likely be as different from our LFN as Alias turned out to be. (Mind you, that doesn't mean it will be any good - the clip I saw was pretty hokey.)

[clueless-02.livejournal.com]

I really, really like this meta, and it does make me have to think/rethink about S5 and Nikita in S5 in different terms.

I think that my problem with S5 was that I watched it too soon after S4 so I wasn't ready for the new pace of the show, the swift decline of Section, and the lack of Birkoff, Michael, and Madeline.

Honestly, what threw me off the most was the change from stand alone episodes to arc based episodes. It seemed like while seasons 1-4 had paradigm shifts, the shifts seemed to change the show gradually rather than the rapid pace at which S5 changed the show. The Jurgen arc took like four episodes to play out, the TR/George conflict took a season- Yes, I choose to live in denial about TR S2 interactions-, Michael with the kid arc took a couple of episodes.

I can't remember where I read this -maybe it was at the Trek board I like to lurk- but I think they are changing the name of Section to Division which is kind of ironic because Division was an organization in 24 land.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Yeah - I think 'reboot' in this case is a very, very loose word. And speaking of Alias - did you see that apparently someone is thinking of rebooting that one - already?

Like geeze, dudes. You could just think up a new name for a spy-chick show and run with it. We don't need every cop show (or sci fi show or buddy show or family sitcom) to swipe the names of previous shows. And people *like* spy chick shows. It doesn't have to be a reboot of anything -- just a new show. And if they had - I'd be all excited and stuff. I love shows that feature women as the central character. I probably would have liked Alias... but LFN was the last show I watched in prime time, original run.... babies, career and spouse got in the way.

As for Paul - and I know this is hard to say to TRs (!) but, though I love Madeline with all my heart - I don't like Paul when he has her (to kick around?). I like him best in S2 when she isn't there -- and I hate him most in parts of S3 and S4 when he is being his ass-iest to her. I sekritly sometimes wish she'd shot him in the face after she got back from escaping destruction (no. forty-leven) of Red Cell. Or at least punched him. ;-)

So in S5 - Madeline's not there, and he's on his own... and -- to me -- more compelling for it. I guess I also like seeing him deal with consequences on his own. I think part of what bugs me about him earlier on is how he keeps avoiding any.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

At this point, they should just give the re-boot a new name and be done with it. It's a brand new spy-chick show! Yay!

Well - you know - I actually dithered after I finished rewatching S4, let it sink in, before queuing up the S5 discs. Which was probably a good plan. In retrospect!

The arc does go quickly. If they'd had a whole season to play it out - imagine the sholocky filler episodes... aiieee!

Even the first time through I didn't think the decline of Section was particularly swift.... I think it had been coming all along, so that part doesn't trouble me particularly. Section was really fragile - and if someone like Michael, who knew where to kick, wanted to break them - it wouldn't be/wasn't hard.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Thanks for enjoying the meta - to be totally honest, I was surprised by my reaction. I remembered thinking that only the last two episodes were worth anything -- because they closed the story out -- and sat down with a fairly grim attitude to watch. Because I'm working on some fic that reference Nikita's family (Jones and Michele) and so I wanted to make sure I had what info the show offered in hand.

And I was really surprised - it's hardly flawless, mind you! - but it is much better than I had realized, more coherent, and more interesting too. And in ways that can't really be (entirely) accidental. The show runners did a better and more loving job closing it out than they got credit for at the time.

I think you're right, by the way, that I am able to genuinely like Paul now that he's pushed from power and is an 'outsider'. I find it much easier to be sympathetic/empathetic with a struggling man vs. a smug, satisfied one. Even if his essential qualities remain quite firmly the same!

we were consistently told throughout the series that Section was "the best."

I don't have any trouble chalking that up to unreliable narrator issues. The only people who said Section was 'the best' were the ones running it. Everyone else respected the Section - which was deadly and had deep, deep pockets, but hardly found them unchallengeable. I mean - how many times was Section breached in S1 alone?

By S2 they are actively courting their enemies with plots that play on how internally divided the Section is, and how much their operatives don't like or trust it, first in S2 with Nikita setting up Adrian, and then in S3 allowing Red Cell to think they've compromised Michael (and earlier Zalman) and that Michael can (easily) get the majority of operatives to back him up. (And S2 opens with Mowen selling the Section out for reasons of his own and also has Petroisan trying to get rid of Paul through purchased assassination by another angry operative). By S4 TR and their Section are desperate and very, very fragile indeed -- mostly because they've willfully or accidentally eliminated all the rest of the rising leadership behind Michael and he's all they've got. Without him Section is collapsing, so they let him waltz in and out of Section more or less depending on his mood that day. Because when he's there and focused, they are almost unbeatable. Without him they are in a very very bad spot.

I think this is one of the reasons that Paul infuriates me so often -- especially during S3 and S4. He is so freaking smug about how wonderful his Section is --- when it's quite clear that his operation is in a great deal of trouble and has been for quite some time -- more or less from Ep1 S1. I mean - when the *entire terrorist community* knows that your best field man works for you only because he wants to and that he has good reason to hate you, and if they can get him to change sides, even for a minute, they might topple the whole....you aren't running an organization that is 'the best.'

You're riding a tiger, and rapidly slipping down toward the tail. So when the tiger eats them.... well, it isn't a surprise.

And so - once Michael finally decides for real to damage the Section, it is well within his grasp to do that. That's one of the things I hadn't realized/remembered actually - is that S5 doesn't make the Collective out to be any better than they ought. It makes it quite clear that they've been completely relying on Michael's advice all along. They are a tool (a dangerous one, yes) in his hand and not a thing with much real there 'there' so to speak without him. I mean, once he dumps them for real, it takes him all of what -- three days to wipe out their top leadership and force them on the run?

The show had actually been hinting for years that Section was going to be toast, or nearly so, the day Michael turned his attention to actually hurting them. S5 just lets that play out.

[jaybee65.livejournal.com]

did you see that apparently someone is thinking of rebooting that one - already?

Oy. *Rolls eyes* But you should watch Alias once you get access to DVDs. I think you'd love the main character (and she's a protagonist I genuinely liked, in contrast to Nikita, so I'd enjoy talking to you about what the differences might be).

I'll pretty much give any spy chick show a chance, to be honest, but we'll see whether I can stick with this one.

and I know this is hard to say to TRs (!)

Ha! Hey, you dislike what you dislike. Doesn't bother me in the slightest!

[clueless-02.livejournal.com]

You know now that you mention it, Section did seem to be pretty fragile at the beginning (Michael breaking into Section during the Robo episodes) and the end of S4.

A little off topic -but not really since we are talking about S5- but anyways, I was wondering if I could borrow your idea about Nikita and Madeline working together to fake Madeline's suicide for a fic that I'm working on.

I have been wanting to do a fic with Nikita in for some time now because despite how I felt about her towards the end of the show, I always thought she was a nice blend of perceptive/innocent, teenager/woman at the beginning of the show.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

Of course you may borrow the idea --- have you found the fic? Or would you rather not read it and clutter your head with it.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

I have a long, long line up -- but Alias is on it.

[clueless-02.livejournal.com]

You know, I don't think that I have, but I would love to read the fic. I remembered your idea from one of our very first discussions about LFN.

Right now, I have some of the lines I want to use in the Maddy/Nikita fic, but I didn't want to put anything down because it was your idea and I wanted to get your okay first.

Um, I working on a 'Meme' post right now and reading your HR fic that you just posted, but I plan to work on my fic tonight so I'm kind of torn. In a way, I want to read it right now because you know it is Madeline/Nikita and if you wrote, then I'm sure that it is awesome. Also, I want to read it so I won't inadvertently steal more than the idea.

But on the other hand, if I don't read it before I write my fic, then any similarity would be wholly coincidental and like you said my head wouldn't be cluttered.

I'll tell you what, if you give me the link to your fic, I will bookmark it; and when I post mine, I will go back and read it.

[madamedarque.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. This is interesting to think about the decline of Section as orchestrated by Michael, or the idea of Section being totally reliant upon Michael's loyalty--because I generally don't think too much about Michael and his role in Section. I'm not sure I buy that Section was completely incompetent without Michael (although S4 definitely seemed to support that view, I just chalk that up to OOC, unrealistic fan-service and leave it at that) because I think that Section was a very large, powerful, complicated organization and the idea that *one* man controlled its fate doesn't make any sense to me.

However, I like your interpretation of the Collective as a tool. Everything about this "powerful new enemy" annoyed me, from the stupid sci-fi esque name to the extremely unlikely premise that all of Section's enemies joined together to destroy them. It was infuriating to think that the proverb-spouting guy and the rest of his team of buffoons could take down the Section. So, while I don't seriously believe that Michael could have beaten Section 2:1 every mission by knowing their systems from *memory*, I like it a whole lot better than the idea that the basement-dwelling Collective could have done it by themselves.

[madamedarque.livejournal.com]

Oh, I don't like it when Paul is mean to Madeline either. But that is a rather essential part of their relationship. We were having a discussion at clueless_02's journal about the icky, abusive parts of the TR relationship (I think you were there) which was rather interesting. I mean, Paul is an asshole--I wouldn't deny it. But the abuse in their relationship is not one-sided; they both give it as much as they take it. Which takes a lot of the ickiness out for me.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

OMG - I had typed this massive comment, and then my POS modem blinked out again and I lost it all.

Short version -- I don't think Michael orchestrated Section's decline (or that Section was incompetent. Competent but overmatched or overstretched groups loose all the time) - I think that the decline was years in the making. I think he just took advantage of the weaknesses that were already there when he was ready to make them bleed.

And I think he *shouldn't* have been able to wreak such havoc - and that, in fact, that he could, in S4 and again in S5 -- is because Paul and Madeline had done nothing to keep their lines of succession full and ready to go, there was obviously no one ready to replace Michael and so they were much too dependent on him -- and this is just more evidence of the underlying disarray in Section itself.

As for Michael's role in Section - it was obviously pretty central, actually. From S1-S4, Section was run by a three person squad - Paul, Madeline, and Michael. They were the only three who had any sense of the whole, or any decision making power. ANY decision making power. If anything, whenever it was that Madeline moved up and became busier with whatever it was she was doing with behavior modification experiments (S2? early S3?) -- and covering Paul's increasingly erratic ass, and Michael took over the chief tactical officer position, and more clearly assumed the position of Paul's successor, he became even more important.

A guy in that position could, in fact, do a lot of damage. It's probably the slot that Paul was in when he took out Adrian, for example.

[nell65.livejournal.com]

It isn't his 'meanness' that bothers me, actually, or the hints of a possibly rough/and or abusive personal/sexual relationship, real or fake for the cameras -- it's all his snorting around and making Madeline be his work-wife and clean up all his shit while he avoids responsibility for any of it that makes me dislike him when he has her close by to pick up after him. When he stands (or whines and pouts and drinks, whichever!) on his own -- then I actually can work up a fair bit of sympathy for the guy. Even, sometimes, admiration.

[madamedarque.livejournal.com]

think that the decline was years in the making. I think he just took advantage of the weaknesses that were already there when he was ready to make them bleed.

Yeah, that makes sense. But just out of curiosity, what do you think was the reason for Michael's antagonism towards Section/Madeline and Paul? I mean, other than the obvious awfulness of being in Section, did he want revenge for the Sex Police incident? But as early as S2 we saw him challenging Paul's power (like in 'Last Night'),so maybe it wasn't Section's treatment of him and Nikita that put him over the edge? I never saw him as someone who pursued power for its own sake, but he did have a healthy sense of self-preservation, so maybe that's all that those sort of posturing situations were...

This is really interesting to think about Michael, actually. It's not something I usually do. btw, I'm so excited to read your new fic! I'll probably have a nice chunk of time tomorrow to do it...

[madamedarque.livejournal.com]

Well, I include Paul treating her like his work-wife under the umbrella of abusive, icky behavior. I agree that it doesn't make him look particularly good--but it never bothered me as much as the Three Eyed Turtle storyline. Hmmm...