Vindauga

I saw Serenity this afternoon and it was good.

I’ve been a fan of Firefly from way back. I watched it when it was first on tv, I was mad when it got cancelled, and I bought the dvd set when it came out. I’m not some johnny-come-lately with the crew of the ship Serenity. I just want everyone to know that from the outset.

But I’m not Joss Whedon’s bitch either; I never watched Buffy or Angel. Its entirely possible that had I known that the shows were by the same person I never would have watched it in the first place. The t-shirts at Thinkgeek which say “Joss Whedon is my new master” are funny but you won’t catch me wearing one.

Also, I’ve been into the whole space opera thing for a while, especially as it concerns western motifs in a sci-fi universe. Yeah, I loved The Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers. I can’t get enough of this kind of stuff.

All of that is by way of a preface, I wanted you to know where I stand before I start talking about this movie. So, that being said, here’s my review. Its good. And not just ‘only if you like space westerns’ good. Its a good story, with fine characters, and a tangible dialogue of ideals. Its worth seeing.

Now that we got the review out of the way I want to talk about this dialogue thingy. I’m not going to talk about specific events or bits of the story, I’m not going to spoil anything for those who want to experience the movie with a tabula rasa.

I like westerns because, by and large, they are morality plays. The focus of any western worth its salt is always an investigation of right and wrong. An issue which weaves its way through Serenity, though “weaves” implies a certain subtly which I think is understating it, is the issue of paternalism. Or, the issue of autonomy, depending on which side of the issue one comes down on. The point is whether others, the government or whomever, has the right to tell you how you should live. The main point against is that one has the right to determine one’s own life, it is a result of our autonomous free agency. The counter point is that if others can stop you from harming yourself, they can and should.

These two ideas are not necessarily at odds but where they begin to diverge greatly is when we begin to enumerate what counts as harm. Some will take autonomy as far as to say the only harm done to an individual is the harm of removing their autonomy, while others will take harm so far as to say that a failure to be the best you can be is a harm in itself.

The arguments often get muddled and obscured, which is something to be careful of. We may be perfectly free outside the bounds of society, but certain human freedoms require society in order to exist, and if we live in society then we are no longer completely autonomous. The argument should be about the degree to which society can interfere but we never get to that point because we fail to address the initial positions and so, the argument has stagnated at a “you can’t” - “we can” level of discussion.

I like this movie a lot. And I like the general tenor of the conflict and the resolution. But I worry that it will engender a renewed acceptance of the misguided idea that we are all truly autonomous free agents, living without obligations; that we have complete soveriengty over ourbodies, our actions, and our attitudes; that we are relativistic atomic entities who merely meet and pass other such bodies throughout life. That way leads to ruin.