I began watching the new version of Hawaii Five-O with some reserve. I was a huge fan of the original because I had a massive crush on James MacArthur (I'm a sucker for a baby-faced blond). And I was actually hoping that he'd be asked to do a cameo or guest role at some point if I watched long enough (that was actually in the works at the time of his death during the first season).
I liked the way they "updated" the bios of the characters, with Kono being a surfer chick instead of looking like an ex-sumo wrestler, and Danny being a divorced father from New Jersey (Yay, Jersey!). I loved the way they referenced the big black Mercury Jack Lord drove in the original. But there was something I did not like in that first show; the premise that the Five-O task force had "immunity" to pursue their targets, that the ends justified the means. I remember saying to some friends, "The REAL Steve McGarrett does NOT require immunity!" Because one of the things that made the original show so appealing to people in their 30's (as my parents were in those days) was that these were cops who were straight arrows. They were upholding the law. Period. Jack Lord's Steve McGarrett would no more think about breaking the law to take down a criminal than he would have come to work in drag. Or even a Hawaiian shirt, unless he were undercover.
Well, I got kind of hooked by the show, despite some discomfort with the high level of violence it uses. I mean, really, who's cuter than Scott Kaan as Dano? And is that guy from Iron Chef America the actor playing Wo Fat? They've had some great twists in the plot-lines. But there's always been something "not right" about the show for me, and I couldn't name it except as nostalgia. And last night's episode, the season cliff hanger, told me why.
We see Kono going into a house (her house?) and the bad guy is watching her. Commercial. Next thing we know Chin Ho is getting a really bad guy (an ex-cop who was on the take while on the force and continued in crime once he was caught) out of prison. The ex-cop says to him, "I guess that immunity deal you Five-O guys is pretty convenient some times." Then we're told that the really bad guy has somehow gotten his henchman to capture Kono and hold her captive and that's why Chin has him out of jail, to trade his freedom for Kono's. (Forget the fact that this was really poorly explained and you had to make the leaps). And now he also has Chin's wife captive and the detective can only save one of them. When Chin wants to know why the really bad guy is doing this he says, "You were a dirty cop, Kelly, but instead of being disgraced like the rest of us, you got your badge back and work with Five -O." Chin says, "I never took any of that money!" The ex-cop says, "No, but you knew who did and you didn't say a word."
And that's where it hit me. The really bad guy was right. And the proof is that Chin has used his immunity to free a dangerous, vicious criminal to protect his family. Did he have any authority to do that? We don't see any conversation with the rest of the Five-O team, he just does it. This McGarrett breaks into the Police Department locker and steals evidence money to use as a ransom for one of his team members. They ignore all kinds of evidence rules and far more criminals are just gunned down rather than brought to justice. These ARE "dirty" cops. As much as we like them as people (or not) they are not upholding the law, they are exacting vengeance or acting out cultural frustration or just exercising the kind of incipient violence that we seem to crave but are afraid of enacting ourselves.
Cop shows used to be modern morality plays, reminding us that right always overcomes wrong, that good is a better choice than evil. But there is no clear morality here. Clearly the paradigm has shifted. Many of the story lines are based on the characters avenging personal wrongs under the veil of law enforcement. The underlying message seems to be that the "greater good" is served by getting these really bad guys off the street, but it's hard to tell what makes them much different than the "good guys", except that the good guys are cuter and are loyal to each other.
It's a similar story with NCIS and NCIS:LA, two shows I love to watch, but with which I have grown more and more uncomfortable over the last two seasons. These folks apparently have the ability to access your most personal data immediately, to track your every movement, and then to send you to Gitmo as a terrorist on any kind of a charge. Evidence protocols and search warrants appear to be strictly advisory. Mark Harmon is adorable and what middle-aged woman wouldn't want to grow up to be Hedy, but honestly, if these are the folks we are leaving in charge of our FREEDOM, we have left the foxes in charge of the hen house.
So will I watch the Five-O opener in September to see if Kono drowns or is saved? Will I watch the last two minutes of NCIS that are required by the urgent promos? Can I watch them as mere entertainment? And if I can, can I still support them knowing that many people will be influenced by them to think that this is how the good guys should behave? I have to wonder, who will protect us from these protectors?
No comments:
Post a Comment