Sally wrote:
Blake is *not* fanatical here, he's fatalistic, and jaded and more detached ("doing relatively decent things for relatively decent reasons").
We'll have to agree to disagree on this (example of Blake's fanaticism below).
But as Boucher said himself "he was idealistic enough to be taken in by
the
girl," to stop her killing Tarrant rather than letting him escape - and to trust that Avon would hear him out.
That he was idealistic doesn't rule out that he was also fatalistic.
As with the fact that it was Avon pulling the trigger ("I wanted to shoot him in the back, but they wouldn't let me") it was possibly something over which the author had limited control - (bearing in mid that the actor's memories may be as subject to scrutiny as the writer's, of course, but given that it was Gareth's demand for Blake to die, it makes sense.)
I don't understand what you're saying here. Yes, Chris knew Gareth wanted Blake to die. And Chris apparently agreed that Avon could be the one to shoot him (but not in the back). But there were any number of ways Boucher could have set that up. The question is why did BLAKE play out the way it did.
That has to do with his loss of his judgement re trust: there is *nothing* in 'Blake' that indicates it has anything to do with fanaticism.
In Blake's own words (and I'm sure you're familiar with his zealous delivery):
DEVA: These stupid games you insist on playing, Blake, will get someone killed eventually. BLAKE: I have to test each one myself.
Blake goes on to admit that Deva could do the testing via computer, but he still won't let go of the need to test them himself. Blake's inability to sway from a course that he recognizes to be dangerous and unnecessary suggests a "person with excessive attachment to an activity," which is one of my dictionary's definitions of a fanatic.
well (Blake's warm relationship with Deva, bearing in mind how clearly we were told Travis had no friends;
You're losing me here. This has nothing to do with having friends or trusting. It has to do with what fuels behavior.
The idea appears to me to be sort of like sleight of hand - get the viewer to doubt Blake for a while, to think exactly what Mac4781@aol suggests - then aha! - show that's he's still a genuine rebel, still one of the Good, if badly Battered Guys -
You're losing me here as well. This has nothing to do with whether Blake was genuinely a bounty hunter or still a rebel. The scene that confirms Blake's irrational behavior doesn't come until near the end when the audience *knows* he's still one of the Good Guys. The question is why would Boucher put that in there. He could have given Blake a rational reason for needing to test possible recruits. Instead he presented his behavior as irrational.
[a] trying to make it seem - even subliminally - that Blake was somehow 'worthy' of being killed does a rather horrible, almost cheapening hatchet job on the tragedy Chris has given us.
Why do you have 'worthy' in quotes? I never said Blake was somehow 'worthy' of being killed. I pointed out things I saw as parallels between STAR ONE and BLAKE. I pointed out that Chris just might have had it in the back of his mind that he needed to tone down the extent of Avon's culpability. Nowhere did I say Blake deserved to die.
Carol