Mac4781@aol.com writes: <Re the eye injury/reference to Travis in the script: Chris knew Blake was going to die at Avon's hands. And he was still expecting a fifth season when he wrote this.>
Agreed.
<He might have been setting it up so that Avon wouldn't look so dastardly for killing Blake. He might have wanted Blake to appear to have followed Travis' path of fanaticism. In word and deed Blake is often shown to be more fanatical than rational in the episode. And that leads to monumental failure.>
But - with all due respect - this and the following *is* a good example of what has been discussed as the danger of trying to decide what the author's intention actually were. Notwithstanding what Calle says about taking the author's word for his intentions - which I agree with to an extent - let's take it bit by bit.
Boucher definitely did want to show the dangers of fanaticism in Blake - *in Star One* (the fact that IMO he muffed it by one-sidedness notwithstanding). Blake is *not* fanatical here, he's fatalistic, and jaded and more detached ("doing relatively decent things for relatively decent reasons"). 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.
Actually, in several interviews, GT has also said it was originally *his* idea that GP Blake be "a rebel, but a real rebel, the Che Guavera type" and "dirty" ... "scarred, vicious, but a hero still fighting for the right things." 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.)
<And that leads to monumental failure. >
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. He accepts Arlen when he shouldn't, and lets Tarrant escape when he shouldn't. ("I find it difficult to trust. It's a failing, I admit -!")
<Travis' final act was an attempt to wipe out the human race. Blake's final act is to wipe out his Gauda Prime base and followers.>
And Avon's final act was to wipe out his ship and followers as well, so it would appear rather like the house that Jack built. Except that the cases are completely *completely* different. Travis's *deliberate* act of attempted mass murder has absolutely nothing in common with Blake's mistaken trust - in Arlen and in the Avon he no longer knew - that led to the GP catastophe (I still think he was right not to trust Tarrant right off, after all, Tarrant didn't trust him either; they're neither of them that stupid).
Actually, Chris *appears* to play games with the audience re the Travis thing - there's the ruined eye and the increased coldness and detachment, but at the same time, there's the clear indicators of what separated them as well (Blake's warm relationship with Deva, bearing in mind how clearly we were told Travis had no friends; the way his major trust mistakes - Arlen and Avon - are because he *did* give it rather than withhold it).
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 - then show *Tarrant* thinking what the audience did - then - oh god! have the second aha! where Tarrant agains learns what the audience did stuffed up - and then there's no chance for a third one. It's like a warped card trick, where *we* can see that the joker's really still the king, but no one on screen can.
<And Avon is the man who rid the series of two "fanatics" who were dangerous to others.>
See above. Blake is no more dangerous to his followers than Avon is to his - and in fact, since it was simply a series of mistakes, he is no more dangerous than any leader who makes horrendous mistakes. He and Avon made them before (as did Tarrant in his breif leadership spells) but were luckier in the consequences those times (aka the series still had a way to go). They are *all* dangerous to others, but not even vaguely does that make them worth 'ridding the series' of.
Again, going back to CB, he makes it fairly clear in both 'The Inside story' and 'The programme Guide' that he saw Avon killing Blake as a horrendous mistake and a dreadful act -
"Avon was left with one ideal human being, one ideal of certainty, and that was Blake. He then found himself in a situation where Blake appeared to have betrayed him, and he couldn't take it ... there was no doubt in his mind, actually, about Blake. He really believed the guy was honest."* (Prog Guide)
"Avon having killed Blake, he becomes protective of him. He's quite insane at this point ..." (Inside Story).
- and one for which Avon will have to atone -
"Having killed Blake, within Avon there is now an unavoidable sense of responsibility ... he's stuck with having to do what Blake would have done." (Inside story)
So it is apparent that Boucher does *not* think Avon's action in killing Blake was 'not as dastardly' - in fact, he appears - both on camera and from his own words - to be setting it up as as horrible and unacceptable as possible (in which Gareth assisted by making sure it was as gory and horrible a shooting as possible) while retaining the audience's sympathy for Avon - in this even-more-dreadful-situation-than-Rumours position as well. This makes a lot more sense to me for two reasons:
[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. WWhat makes it soooo agonising is that no one deserved what happened to them - Blake *least* of at all;
[a] if there was going to be a 5th season, since the dramatic possibilities are so much richer if Avon has done something that by his own and other people's standards is actually unforgiveable. I do think that, had there been a S5, Chris - like any writer worth his pen and ink - would have milked that agony good and proper.
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp