By Any Means: Episode 5.

Previously on By Any Means: Episode 4.

Well. After an interested reader has found their way to this blog by Googling, quote, “by any means is crap,” unquote, I might as well point out that I did not actually use those words in conjunction and in the right order. However, I might also point out that I wasn’t particularly happy with this episode at all.

One, the ethnic stereotyping is strong in this one. This is all about context, and so far, the context is this: we haven’t seen TomTom actually interact with criminals before. He complains that he’s not allowed to go out and do the dirty work a lot, but that’s all we know. So now we see him with a convict, who happens to be a man born in Turkey, and he suddenly won’t take his hands off the gun Jess gave him.  We don’t even know if Jack gave TomTom any weapons training. The trouble isn’t necessarily that the convict in question is not Caucasian, the trouble is that we have nothing to compare this scene to. Studies have shown that people feel inherently more threatened by others of a different ethnic origin. With that in mind, we can’t tell what it is, exactly, that’s setting TomTom off.

The second issue of stereotyping is TomTom’s reaction to Mehmet’s question, whether he’d have stood by and done nothing when Ahmed hurt Jess. I strongly object to TomTom’s, “I’d have blown his head right off.” That is the kind of male posturing that, for one thing, TomTom has never exhibited before, at least not in association to violence; and connecting it this obviously with the influence of a muslim character is perpetuating prejudice so lazily I can’t wrap my head around it. TomTom wouldn’t have shot Ahmed because, a) he’d have been too scared, b) he knows Jess can handle herself. If he had been there, he’d have seen that Jess was taken by surprise, but not incapable of fending Ahmed off by herself. She had him on the ground in three moves. It’s one thing for him to be worried about Jess’s safety, it’s quite another to deny her agency on the basis of her gender in her absence and to say something so moronic — and for the writers to use that to bridge the “cultural gap” between TomTom and Mehmet, erasing female emancipation and promoting Mehmet’s culture/religion as endorsing senseless violence… Where do they get off?

Point two, David Harewood was wasted on this shady MI5 operative. What, five minutes of screen time, if that? Also, except for the ambassador and his daughter in Episode 3, I can’t think of any significant supporting characters adding to the diversity of the cast. In this episode, nearly every guest role was cast with non-white actors, except for the Chief Constable; which may not have been the producers’ intention, but which looks unfortunate. Why weren’t there more diverse guest actors beforehand? In light of  something that Sleepy Hollow producer Heather Kadin, for instance, said about diverse casting, it seems as though this was the episode to fill the quota with.

Apart from that, that scene with Jess disguised as a chav and the two kids Jack borrowed off an au pair (excuse me?), was utterly ridiculous. Grifter narratives often use caricatures to manipulate people and wreak havoc — just look at the Ocean’s trilogy — but that was just… and then, the camera trails up Jess’ legs as she walks away, irrevocably introducing the element of sexuality into a narrative that could — that should — focus on a woman doing her job. Again. Charlie could have complimented anything, her personality, her wit, her determination, but no, he goes for her body, because that is obviously the only real asset Jess has. I’m not saying he can’t find her attractive, but the key to representation is what we see in relation to everything else — and in relation to everything we do not see. Add to that the whole funny business about Jack’s shirt… it’s just completely unnecessary.

I had really hoped that this series would take off properly after I really liked the second episode, but since then, it has kept bouncing back and forth between mediocre and ridiculous. The characters have so far still not succeeded in drawing me in and making me really care about what happened to them, and I don’t entirely care about the cons, either. Every episode, I get bored at some point around the middle, and that’s not supposed to happen — especially not if the con is supposed to work not just on the mark, but on the audience.

Next: Episode 6 (series finale).

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “By Any Means: Episode 5.

  1. You’ve read my mind! I too found Tom Tom’s assertion that he’d blow the one guy’s brains out to be totally over the top. He’d do that because Jess was hit?! I could see him wanting to intervene, but manslaughter seems totally ridiculous. Plus, he’s the one who doesn’t have experience with that sort of thing. And why is it he suddenly knows how to use a gun? To be fair, though, I didn’t think Tom Tom was nervous was because Ahmet was non-white but because Ahmet was a convict, potentially a very dangerous one whom Tom Tom thought had been involved in human trafficking.

    I also enjoyed Ep2 the best, and I though Ep 1 was just them getting up to speed and that’s why it wasn’t as good. Now I’m wondering if Ep 2 was the one good ep in the season.

    Also, you didn’t mention this, but I find Jack and Jess’s little smirky smiles to be really annoying. Can they be any more superior and condescending? Ugh. At least Charlie and Tom Tom show some vulnerability and uncertainty, which makes them more likable and human.

    Like

    1. He also got his facts muddled — Jack specifically set Ahmed had set Mehmet (the convict TomTom was at HQ with) up. I would have bought TomTom wanting a gun to protect himself from Ahmed, but Mehmet wasn’t the one who trafficked women and children, a fact TomTom should have retained from the briefing. I don’t think it was Mehmet’s ethnicity here, either, but as I said, the fact we don’t have anything comparable just makes it look unfortunate.

      I’m afraid Ep 2 was the highlight — unless Ep 6, as the series finale, packs more of a punch, but I’m a little concerned it will do that through a cliffhanger or character-death angst, which isn’t the best way to do it if the writers want to rely solely on that.

      Oh, right, you remind me of something I’d wanted to talk about: Charlie’s doubts about the morality of their actions. I kept mentioning it whenever I saw it, but it seems that after Ep 3, that sort of… evaporated. It certainly hasn’t led to any conflict yet, and I’m not sure it will come to fruition. I hadn’t made the connection, but Jack and Jess’s showing off of their experience and not really feeling the pain of what they do absolutely contributes to me not getting emotionally invested in them. It’s like I connect with Jack (only marginally more than with Jess) merely because he’s played by Warren Brown and I have history with characters he played before, Ripley on Luther especially. And, yeah, the superior attitude definitely starts getting annoying.

      Like

Click those keys: what d'you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s