Get the Feed
"You Make Mistakes. You're a Machine": Deconstructing Robot Love in "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" and Beyond
Lately, we have been inundated with science fiction narratives that have been exploring our collective love/fear obsession with technology in a new light. “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles,” “Battlestar Galactica,” and (a little ways back) “The Matrix” trilogy of films all envision a world in which humans and machines — as distinct races — attempt to find a harmonious balance.
While sf has long pondered humanity’s relationship to robots or cyborgs — and has offered individual cases in which they win our hearts (C-3PO or R2D2, anyone?) — it rarely has dwelled on machines as a distinct race, and, when it has, they are the very image of horror: a Cold War nightmare, crushing human individuality and freedom (the Borg, anyone?)
One great exception might be the inventor of the modern robot narrative — Isaac Asimov. The more he wrote about robots — and he wrote a lot — the more complex they became. But especially in his early short stories, such as “The Bicentennial Man,” the sympathetic, feeling robots were the exception.
The most thought-provoking and engaging of the new narratives is the “Terminator” TV series, which just ended its second season last week. I’m a big fan of “Battlestar,” and I still think the first “Matrix” was close to cinematic perfection. But only “Terminator” has built a truly diverse community of machines — with multiple agendas, multiple desires — without resorting to some type of spiritual mythology to explain their existence.
Unlike “Battlestar,” in particular, which kept the origins of the “cylons” a mystery to the very end and hinted that their evolution was rather human-like, “Terminator” builds its robot world — its history, its rules — as a convincing extension of reality.
“Terminator,” especially as it began to hit its stride at the end of its first season, just keeps adding layers to the relationships between humans and machines, relentlessly challenging us to negotiate our preconceived notions about the nature of humanity and intelligence. The allegorical resonance of the narrative keeps the mind humming.
It’s really good. I mean, really good.
Like many of us, I had my doubts at the start. First, it felt like a crass attempt to cash in on the blockbuster movies. There also was great fear that through everything from questionable casting and marketing to objectifying camera angles, they were going to undermine what has become an iconic feminist narrative. In fact, The Sarah Connor Charm School — supporting “physical feminism and survivalism in our icon’s name” — still hasn’t taken down their initial condemnation of the TV series, which is apparently based on seeing only the pilot show and its initial promotion.
Instead of being overly derivative from the movies, however, the TV series — in the ways only a long-running TV series can do — significantly deepens the mythology, to potentially Buffyverse proportions. It’s more proof that we need to start treating the serial TV show as a great art form in its own right, in the same cultural league as the epic novel.
And instead of lessening the power of the feminist narrative, the show has enhanced it — more by presenting its female characters as fully human (or aspiring to be) than by giving speeches (as Linda Hamilton’s character famously did in “Terminator 2″ [T2]).
Lena Headey, who plays Sarah Connor as an emotionally immature but intensely loving mother, is far from the “eye candy” that the initial marketing of the show made her out to be. She has spent this entire season in physical disarray, and she always appears to be in frantic motion, either on the run or anticipating the next move. While Headey’s body might never be as buff as Hamilton’s in T2, her body, most of the time buried under jackets or military-grade protective gear, is just a non-issue.
Summer Glau, who plays Cameron, the cyborg terminator sent from the future to protect John Connor (Sarah’s son and the future savior of humanity), is a different story, but equally compelling. The marketing of the show this season — especially with its tie-in with Joss Whedon’s “Dollhouse” — has certainly objectified Glau in pursuit of young male viewers. And that spills over to some of the outfits she has worn during the second season.
But instead of letting her sexuality just sit there, it has become part of the complexities of the show, as Cameron has, at times, appeared to flirt or attempt to seduce John to steer him away from relationships that might endanger him and his future. As Cameron’s programming has experienced some glitches — and she has begun to develop her own desires outside of her original mission — the sexual and romantic tension between her and John has provided one the most potentially rewarding storylines.
It’s a moment of mutual frustration, when, near the end of the second season, John delivers to Cameron one of the most telling lines of the series: “You make mistakes. You’re a machine.”
In any case, what has made the show one of the best on television is its introduction of other, new characters into the Terminator mythology. Although the show centers around Sarah, John and a sympathetic figure from the future — as did the first two films did — two other cyborgs, Catharine Weaver and Cromartie, have stolen every scene in which they appeared, to the point where the fate of the world (and the show) now seems to rest in their hands.
Cromartie (played by Garret Dillahunt in a tour-de-force performance), in particular, is an increasingly powerful artificial intelligence that is attempting to balance out human values and behavior with its logical, pre-programmed mind. That might sound like a version of Data from “Star Trek: The Next Generation.” In many respects, that is a clear inspiration. But because of the complex (sometimes frustratingly logic-defying) interplay of the present and the future in the “Terminator” world, Cromartie’s development is connected to an entire race of cyborgs who are attempting to make a connection with humanity and present the apocalyptic future that threatens everyone.
Let’s hope we are able to see how that mind-blowing future plays out over the next several years. In the meantime, fight your skepticism and start renting those DVDs.
Posted at 11:01 AM | Permalink | | 
Email
| 
Print
April 18, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Hopefully Fox give us a third season for this show. The dream must go on!
April 18, 2009 at 11:55 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeaOw09yrwA&feature=channel_page
April 19, 2009 at 9:04 am
Everyone’s entitled to his own opinion. For me, TSCC rules.
April 19, 2009 at 11:20 am
True. But Bernie isn’t simply expressing an opinion (ex. “I enjoyed watching the show.”); Bernie is making an argument for TSCC as “thought-provoking and engaging.” Bernie didn’t present too many examples for this. Bernie says a lot of stuff but doesn’t really explain it. What “preconceived notions about the nature of humanity and intelligence” is Bernie talking about? How does TSCC “deepen the mythology” of the Terminator franchise, and is this even a good thing? After looking at Matthew’s points, Bernie leaves a lot to be desired in the article above. I agree with Matthew that TSCC shouldn’t have been made into a T.V. series. I would have suggested that they take the ideas surrounding the franchise and make their own universe, like the way the T.V. show “Heroes” took many elements from the “X-men” universe and applied it to a universe and story line conducive to television.
April 19, 2009 at 11:53 am
John, thanks for recognizing I’m making larger claims …. As far as not getting too specific, guilty as charged. I’m coming from the perspective, however, that most of the readers don’t watch the show — or more likely, saw the first couple of episodes and backed out. So my goal wasn’t to get specific in my argument but to put Terminator in the context of other science fiction narratives — and make the case that it’s breaking new ground and is definitely worth watching.
As I note, however, the series really hits its stride in the second season. Matthew’s critique is from February 2008 — in the middle of the first season. If Matthew has watched more of the show, I’d love to hear his take now.
As I also note above, I had a great deal of skepticism going into the show — and it took me awhile, along with the show itself, to appreciate the new direction the narrative was taking.
To give one example of how the show deepens the mythology of the films, I think we only have to look to [SPOILER ALERT] the end of season two as Catharine Weaver, most likely part of a rogue community of machines from the future, is attempting not only to rebel against other machines (which in itself would be expanding the vision of the films) but more intriguingly — through Cromartie — to recreate the beginnings of artificial intelligence — to give machines a sense of morality. Again, that’s a mind-blowing idea — a great sf use of time travel — that you could go back and insert something into the origins — create a new machine origin myth, in fact — and that might change the future.
April 19, 2009 at 6:40 pm
You make some good points. Thanks for taking my comments seriously and providing some clarifications.
April 19, 2009 at 11:46 pm
While the statement we have up is from early in the series, some of us have had to harden our stomachs to continue watching to just to answer accusations like this. Sorry, no, nothing in the series has changed our opinions….if anything it’s justified our initial beliefs. It does require a great deal of watching of the first two movies to wash each episode’s pollution from my mind when I sit through it. I really hope that it’s over now, guess we’ll know in a month. And hopefully Moon Bloodgood will be kick ass enough to help wipe this out of our collective memories.
And thanks for the hits. ~:)
April 20, 2009 at 10:29 pm
You’re welcome for the hits. But I’d love to hear specifically what part of my argument for the increasingly strong feminist standpoint of the series you’d disagree with …
May 10, 2009 at 12:19 am
Hmm…I hadn’t though to come by again until now.
I guess our criteria for “feminist” (or I should say pro-feminist, as this show has a male showrunner and the beginning of a feminist show would be to have a female, feminist showrunner…actually, can’t think of any of those existing at this point *sigh*) are apparently different. It seems that you are saying that it’s “feminist” due to having fully actualized female characters? This would make a lot of shows “feminist.” Um, of course, I don’t see any of the characters in this one being actualize, but people are obviously seeing something I’m not…every single one of them seems one dimensional.
I should note that while the first Terminator is a pro-feminist movie in what I’m looking for….Sarah goes from victim to Final Girl (who reacts only) to choosing to become a warrior is really a key for me…T2 falls short at the end because the Terminator ends up having to come to the rescue in the end when she nearly puts the T1000 over the edge. I understand the box-office reason for this, but it still irritates the ending for me.
That being said, if there was any chance of this TV show being defined as pro-feminist for me, it was lost when the supposed Sarah needed rescuing form her teenage son early in this season. But, you know, there wasn’t any real chance to begin with.
Another key point, of course, is that the women be competent at their tradecraft….which is not happening. Of course, neither are any of the male characters. Unfortunately, the writers are not intelligent enough to understand any aspect of it themselves so the characters have no chance.
I could seriously go on. I have linked my physical feminist blog in this comment, I have previously written about what I’d love to see in a TV series….closest so far is In Plain Sight, except I’d prefer something with a SF twist and, well, it’s really just close. In another week or so I should have a new post up about the sexism in the Whedonverse…but I want to drag my way through what I really hope is the one and only season of Dollhouse first. Just in case you actually want to know how I define these things. ~;)