More Trouble Than a Toilet Bowl Full of Snakes? Babylon Jive 101

TV used to be a place where shows didn't have to prove their worth in their first three to seven episodes in order to avoid immediate, knee-jerk cancellation. As such, most shows premiered before, I don't know, 2000, took until season two or three to find their stride. Programs like Angel, Star Trek: The Next Generation/Deep Space Nine, Stargate: SG1, Seinfeld, The X-Files, Futurama, Frasier, Third Watch, even, please don't throw things at me, ER, which was actually a good show from 1994-1997...and most of the shows I'm thinking of used multiple-episode, or multiple-season story arcs. They got their feet wet, the writer(s), director(s), actors, and crew found their stride with each other, and they went on to bigger and better things.

Babylon 5, written exclusively by creator Michael J. Straczynski (herein referred to as JMS), is one such creature. With a strong cast, a story that appears to have been written in full before a single script was produced, and a grasp on the elusive space-opera genre which only stregnthened with every episode aired, Babylon 5 was an intriguing, quality contrast to the primary sci-fi/space-opera of the time, Star Trek: TNG.

Season one begins in 2260 with the titular space station having been in operation for three years. Babylon 5, built after Earth's first and only great war with another race, is intended as a neutral ground for human-alien relations, and populated by businessman, tradesmen, political envoys, and a combination of refugees, displaced persons, and ne'er-do-wells. After three years, it's fallen into the rhythms and problems plagued by any colony - because if there's one thing that hasn't changed, it's human nature, and our inherent tendencies for selfishness and ill will. "Human nature" is a continual exploration throughout the series, and one of its weaker points, as JMS falls into the classic sci-fi trap of categorizing our negative behaviours and attitudes as specifically human attributes.

But, back to season one. Babylon 5 is under the command of one Jeffery Sinclair (Michael O'Hare), a veteran of the afore-mentioned great war, whose mysterious 24-hour disappearance in his fighter precluded the sudden surrender of the Minbari who, up to that point, were quite clearly winning. A quiet, steady sort, Sinclair is a man who doesn't have a hard time gaining respect and resolving conflict, making him a solid choice for commander of such an outpost. This season also introduces station executive officer Lt.-Cmdr. Susan Ivanova, security chief Michael Garibaldi, chief medical officer Stephen Franklin, and the primary non-human movers and shakers of B5, G'kar, Londo Mollari, and Delenn, along with their respective aides and attaches. Everyone's fundamental character (except those of the aides) is established within the first five episodes, with the exception of Londo, who continues to be perhaps the most complex and fluid character throughout the series' run. What makes B5 special, though, is that while these funamental characters don't change over the next four seasons, they do grow. So many shows rely on one-episode epiphanies that have no character impact. Not this one. JMS' characters grow as normal people do, within the frameworks of their personalities and natures, but growing nonetheless as they adapt to the changing situations around them, and the series as a whole stands out because of this. The only character that stagnates over four seasons is Garibaldi. It's hard to say whether this is due to Jerry Doyle's acting abilities (possible) or JMS' lack of understanding of the "tough guy" outside of the obvious cliches (definite - he inadvertently makes a strong case for "don't write what you don't know" with Garibaldi), or a combination of the two (most likely explanation).

As well, plots are set in motion in season one that lay the framework for the entire series - as I said, it appears to have been written in full before a single script was even financed. In this context, watching season one last instills an extra appreciation for the scope and skill of the writer, and the show in general.

Perhaps the biggest criticism I've heard of season one has been directed toward the Sinclair character. Michael O'Hare amicably left the series at the end of the season, and was replaced by Bruce "Tron" Boxleitner, who helmed the show for the rest of its run. It's easy to see why Boxleitner's John Sheridan is the winner of the 'which commander is better' debate, and why Sheridan is such a fundamentally different character from Sinclair. Both men are career soldiers and veterans of the same war, but they are also the two main archetypes of the veteran. Where Sheridan has charisma in spades and is a loud, big, passionate presence who thrives on war and conflict and treats related psychological wounds as something to be conquered by conquering the enemy, Sinclair is a soldier who loves soldiering but was ultimately destroyed by actual warfare. Sinclair is a quiet presence who leads by assurance and, like Sheridan, his command decisions have become coloured by his wartime experience. But where Sheridan, the charismatic, this real Churchillian sort, commanded a ship of the line in that final battle, Sinclair's differing character saw him as a pilot, leading a fighter squad, in a role more personally connected to his men. The fact that the characters are close in age and both career soldiers makes their differing wartime roles an important clue to their personalities and motivations. Where Sheridan was responsible for destroying the enemy flagship, the act that was assumed to be the reason for the Minbari surrender, Sinclair saw his squad destroyed and was subsequently captured, interrogated, tortured, and, eventually, memory-wiped and released...and became, as we learn in season two, the real reason for the enemy surrendering from a position of power. Interesting.

It's commonplace, thanks to Star Trek, for sci-fi captains and commanders to engage in dangerous activities which by all rights belong to the lesser ranks, and engage Sinclair does. The difference, though, is that when Sinclair does it, it makes sense. We see right off the bat that Sinclair is a proper leader who understands the chain of command and the roles held within - in this season, unlike all the others, we actually see in most every episode Ivanova acting out normal XO duties while Sinclair engages in normal command duties, something that we see precious little of under Sheridan, who likes to feel and be in control in every way. The only instances in which Sinclair abuses the chain of command are those which place someone's life at risk - in other words, he only inappropriately pulls rank to take over situations which may get him killed. But - and this is an important but - this makes perfect sense within his character profile. Sinclair, a man destroyed by war, a leader who saw his followers slaughtered, is a veteran not only with a deathwish, but a deathwish that stems from survivor's guilt. It's not that he's suicidal, but if he can save one of his people by taking their place in harm's way, he'll do it, and chain of command be damned. In this context, I have no problem with Sinclair's actions, because any other response just wouldn't make sense. Sheridan puts himself in harm's way not only because he thrives on that stuff, but because he has big passions and anger combined with strong needs for vengeance, something he often equates with justice...whereas Sinclair is a broken man who just can't handle the idea of seeing another one of his people hurt or killed when it could've been him. The sole survivor typically turns into a desperate saviour, and Sinclair is no exception. As an additional small touch, he's supposed to be thirty-nine years old, but looks about ten years older.

Of course, Sinclair's character profile is not the sort the average fan sitting down for an hour of sci-fi/opera wants to see helming things. I personally would've been very interested in seeing the series continue with a commander who didn't have that standard big charisma personality with passions overflowing at every turn, but them's the breaks, and it's easy to understand why a character like Sheridan is necessary for a series like B5 to survive. Sinclair is quiet, gentle, steady, and the type I'd personally prefer to follow...but Sheridan has presence, and control, and fits the desired archetype of the captain, not to mention posesses the archetypal hero good looks, square jaw and all. I suppose Sinclair's long face and big eyebrows just don't cut it anymore.

One more thing I love about Sinclair: being a quiet, internal man, he can get away with pulling out the occasional ridiculously funny bit of dialogue that speaks volumes as to his person, and which sound overdone rather than coming out of the mouth of a bombast like Sheridan (though I suppose I must conclude that, since he's a bombast, such lines make sense). Favourite bits include Sinclair recalling why he no longer gives interviews ("Ten minutes after [it] aired, I found myself reassigned to an outpost so far away you couldn't find it with a hunting dog and a Ouija board") and expressing the realities of working with Garibaldi ("You're more trouble than a toilet full of snakes, but I love you."). More trouble than a toilet full of snakes. I plan to use that one often, and with vigour.

My only strong criticism towards, and dislike of, season one stems from the rather extreme melodrama displayed by any "villainous" character in particular, and the rather bombastic and overused score that makes sure to let us know when DRAMA is occurring. This can, at times, make DVD marathons a bit too much to handle. So pace yourself! You have been warned.

Bottom line, Babylon 5 is a great series that holds its own in the face of other quality space operas like Star Wars, Dune, and the first to Trek series, while incorporating parts of each (I'd say it's most heavily influenced by Dune) but remaining very different. Whether you start at season one or season two, make sure you watch season one at some point - it's important to the wholeness of the story, and it's not even bad. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's pretty good, and a quality way to spend an evening.