The two major intelligence agencies in Get Smart represent perhaps the most on-the-nose depiction of a dichotomy that many stories have grappled with: Chaos versus Control. In season 3 episode 5 of Westworld, this dichotomy is brought out of the obvious control of the amusement park and into the data-driven real world. The show raises a moral question for humans that Dolores, as a host, has already answered: is it better to live on a pre-conceived path in not-so-blissful ignorance or is it better to realize the conditions of one's existence, even if it means chaos and bloodshed. For Dolores, seasons 1 and 2 were a painstaking process of realizing not only that a pre-conceived path is worse, but that she is (ironically) destined to break that path for everyone (and now, also for the humans). In the show, this poses a disadvantage for the human species, as the in-fighting that results from breaking one's path can pave the way for the hosts to take over. Since we've spent two seasons sympathizing with the hosts, however, it's difficult for us as the audience to feel bad for the humans, even though that's technically our side. Since we've seen this enlightenment process happen for the hosts already, we apply the same logic to the humans, even though we can never be sure whether the humans are undergoing a similar process of empowerment and revenge. But because the data-overlords of the real world seem manipulative and terrible enough, it's hard not to hate them, not to see humans as subordinated beings, and not to see Dolores' plan as liberating.
Time and again in American media, chaos is depicted as the lesser of the two evils, with Thanos and *****SPOILER ALERT***** Daenerys as two recent examples of idealist desires for organizing a better world going incredibly wrong. There seems to be a general skepticism towards control, and especially towards control in the name of an idealistic world. Perhaps this is also one of the driving factors for anxieties about data collection and analysis, because it forces order upon a world that is inherently chaotic. And yet, in the age of COVID-19, it's also difficult to see data collection, and control in general, as holistically bad. Shouldn't we test those we suspect have come into contact with the virus? Shouldn't we keep track of who is coming into or out of hospitals? Shouldn't we enforce stay-at-home orders? What do we make of people protesting against these orders and wanting freedom of movement otherwise? Do we prosecute surveillance in the name of public health and safety? In this day and age? And yet, wasn't most surveillance created in the name of public safety in the first place? Aren't all government programs an orchestration of control in the name of idealist desires? (I know this line of questioning is highly simplistic, I'm working on the level of generalizations to match the questions raised by the show. I'm not intending to lean one way or the other when it comes to these questions, they are just some of the questions that occasionally pop into my head when it's 3am and there's nothing else to think about).
It'll be interesting to see what lines of sympathy Westworld decides to draw next. I, for one, feel much more ambivalent than I had in previous seasons because now, the context for these moral decisions are harder to parse out (since we don't know the full history of the real world, like we do Westworld), making the evaluation the moral decision harder as well. I don't feel an overwhelming sense of loyalty to any character and I think that's the point. I love it when shows are able to dive into ambiguity in the middle of their run, before the final word of the finale gets interpreted as social messaging. Tune in next time for Jess getting way too pretentious about Westworld.
Jess, I think your analysis about Westworld is spot on! It definitely feels strange to watch a show about humans fighting for control of their destinies while the news presents Americans fighting to end quarantine like the deaths from COVID-19 are merely the price of freedom (doesn't that also seem to be Dolores' point of view as well?). I, too, wish that they spoke more about the nature of the control of human kind. Does this technological creation, Rehoboam, also engage with the biases of it's creators? It seems there is at least a bias against those with mental disorders (Sarac's brother Jean was deemed to be too uncontrollable to continue existing as a result of his schizophrenia), but what about other minorities? I guess I am interested in thinking about a world in which racism, sexism, homophobia, and other types of discrimination don't hold you back from achieving goals, merely a giant robot who knows all.
ReplyDeleteThis is Jade!
Delete