A The 100 Community
Wednesday 9:00 PM on The CW


I fully realize that TV.Com is not a sight for in-depth analysis of television, film or any media format for that matter.However, every once in a while the total lack of cultural awareness in some of the reviews created by not one specific critic, but all of them in general is mind bogglingly depressing to me.Maybe, I am just a pompous-arrogant self-absorbed bastard (many a person has used these words to describe me—including ex-girlfriends—but I think they are just sore about not making the logical argument stick), so there is a small (infinitesimally small) part of myself that is willing concede the point that I might be just an incurable curmudgeon of the highest order! However, I’m not willing to do it this time!(I’ll leave it up to you to make your decisions about my personality, motivation and whatever else you might about me…)I cannot fathom how“The Kaitlin” who reviewed the episode missed all of the interesting cultural aspects of the premise of this episode and turned her review into a 8th grade book report (I might be generous with the grade level—it was probably more like a slightly above average 5th grader—but why argue about such details???) that essentially gave a pass to bad writing and then worst of all congratulated utter stupidity.So on with the critique of the review.







Contents Under Pressure provided another example of how The 100 isn't afraid to challenge its characters and test their limits in this brutal world. However, I take issue with the use of Clarke's feelings for Finn—which still feel rushed, given the short amount of time she's actually known him—as the reason that she radically changed her calm and rational demeanor. Love makes you do the wacky, but does it really make people condone the use of torture? Was there another way for the series to force Clarke to see that being a leader sometimes means making tough calls?” The Kaitlin’s reviewThe 100 "Contents Under Pressure" Review: Don't Bottle It Up”

I’m not sure how to really take this statement: factually, sarcastically, or even possibly ironically? The problem is that the challenge Is it is really possibly that The Kaitlin believes that teenagers left to their own devices will turn immediately to torture if they don’t have a prom to go to? I know why the writers wrote the torture in… It was just another one of those “gritty-dark boxes to check off on a long list of boxes to check off that Hollywood”, some how think’s by merely mentioning that it will confer upon the story some magical elements of drama!It is a question that even the Kaitlin herself seems to be ambiguous about its ultimate usefulness in the story. Yet, a conflict exists since the only real reason the author feels any ambiguity towards the use of torture is due to the fact that she doesn’t believe in the feelings Clarke may have for Finn. Really, that is the only problem you have with it? NOTHING ABOUT MORAL ISSUES WITH TORTURE ITSELF? I’m just fascinated by how easily our culture has accepted the fact that heroes now use torture!




I remember the days when the heroes used to be against the use of Torture.It was a long time ago; a B-grade Actor turned President, named Reagan was sitting in the Oval Office spouting off his anti-communist rhetoric and Hollywood was obsessed with Russian aggression.However, during that period of time Americans still believed we wore a white Stetson and rode in on a white horse to save the day and everything the American Government did was a righteous act ordained by the Devine himself.Now we have accepted the diametrically opposed view about our selves…We now accept that torture and human rights are meaningless as long as the goal of Safety is established—oddly it is no less righteous or Divinely Ordained—it is only slightly more honest. But, that isn’t what troubles me so. What troubles me so is the fact that we have accepted this once antithetical belief in our selves.That is the fact we need to discuss.

So, that brings me to my biggest gripe why is it we don’t get any critical statements about torture’s moral, social, and political value.We never hear this is any of these so-called online critical examinations of these series just let the writers of such tripe off with nothing but “oh it didn’t feel real because x wasn’t that much in love with y to act of torture z”.That is totally nonsensical to write. It as is if the writers of the series v and critic w think systematic torture is something people come by easily. In the case of this series it is as if torture is no more relevant to a bunch of teens as going to a wild-kegger party.How is it that some one can come to that point?There is nothing in this story to suggest that any one of these elements are such a part of the society in question that these kids would immediately go to torture to extract information from some person.

Sure, you’re saying to yourself what about “Bellamy”…What about Bellamy is my question? He is nothing more than a schoolyard bully.I know about Schoolyard Bully’s and their friends—a show of true force by enough people usually works.Yes, bullying is clearly a type of psychological torture.However, it is not like the same type of torture you find in this situation.More often than not schoolyard bullying is a way to force social groups to conform to specific elements in a specific cultural setting. While this is certainly a form of torture isn’t the same type of torture you find in a combat zone.This is why it feels as if we could just as easily see all of these kids run off to a mid-summer’s night ball in the post-nuclear Nottingham Forest.NONE of the characters are developed enough to really make this torture scene seem a) motivated , b)realistic in nature,and c) anything more than a check box on some moronic producer’s insipid list of gritty and grimy things supposedly to increase character drama.And Bellamy is no different—a school yard bully-yes, with the sort of torture that this activity implies but not a person that tortures someone for information. He just doesn’t have the character to do it.

Finally- let’s talk about poisoned knives!



Why have a poison that takes hours to work in your victim?That is not exactly the sort of poison you put on your knives, arrows, or other weapons.Slow poisons are what you use for courtly assassinations so it seems like natural causes just ask the Borgias’…In combat you want a fast acting paralytic poison that incapacitates your adversary quickly thus making him/her an easy target to kill.So basically what I am saying is that Finn should be dead long before the torture scene even begins.Otherwise what is the point of having a poison on your blade if it takes 2 days to kill the opponent? You might already be dead? So you will die with the happy notion he will die too?

And why do you have antidote to it? That doesn’t make sense. You know which knife you have with the poison coated blade so you only draw it in a combat scenario. It is not like you are using the poison coated blade to cut up your breakfast or lunch?If you did that you would need to carry around jugs of antidote with you.This is a knife like the Gurkha’sKhukuri is it is only drawn when it is used for combat—obviously unlike the Gurkha’s you don’t draw you own blood with it.A tradition that I believe still exists in some units within the Nepalese Army.However, the general idea is the same you only draw this weapon when you mean to do harm to a human attacker or enemy of opportunity.

And I will leave you with this idea…

“Remember Gordon…”



Follow this Show
Members
8,520