My newest TV addiction is Showtime's freshman serial killer drama, Dexter. We hear so much about morality in politics these days ("values voters" and all), but often morality is just a buzz word or a code for validating entrenched hate ( it's moral to hate gays; it's moral to hate terrorists; it's moral to exercise the death penalty, it's moral to give tax breaks to the rich and not the poor...at least according to some "values voters.")
Frankly, the question of morality (and what constitutes morality...) is often left unexplained or undebated in our national conversation.
So far as I can discern thus far, Dexter is a unique series in that it steadfastly addresses that void. As a series, it constantly asks the question: is Dexter Morgan - a sociopath - ...moral?
Wow! How can I ask such a question? I must be a crazy liberal, right? Well bear with me okay. Consider the facts: Dexter protects and nurtures his sister, Debra. That's "good" isn't it? He also takes wonderful care of his girlfriend Rita's children. He protects them and makes them happy. That too is "good," right? Dexter even boasts his own moral code: he follows the "Rules of Harry (James Remar)," his deceased Dad. And Dexter punishes the guilty (admittedly outside the confines of law...). Is enforcing "justice" not the very definition of righteous; of morality? What do you think? Am I barking up the wrong tree here? Is there a case to be made for Dexter as a moral man?
So...Is a man who can feel nothing...capable of morality? That's the enduring and provocative interrogative that Dexter has so expertly raised, and I have to admit, I'm obsessed with the notion. Can a serial killer with no milk of human kindness, no emotions, no feelings be termed good? Can someone totally dispassionate and boasting an insatiable urge to kill, contribute to the betterment of society? Can someone who has never felt emotional pain, truly understand what it means to be human? Or, does he - lacking the barometer of emotions - better understand our existence than those of us who have our judgment clouded? I wonder. And I'm very happy that a mainstream TV series has dedicated itself to tackling so valuable a notion. It proves to me that television has indeed arrived in a new golden age. Like Twin Peaks, Star Trek or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dexter looks to me like it can be analyzed in the same manner as great literature. Based on the first two episodes, it merits that comparison.
Many questions about morality occupy "Crocodile," Dexter's sophomore episode. At one point, Dexter even asks (in voiceover) "if God is in the details - and God is in this room - God is with me." It's a fascinating point to consider: Dexter employs eye-for-an-eye, Old Testament-style judgments against the evil, and he's learned to "always be sure" that his victims are guilty. So would our society, nay should our society laud and embrace a man like Dexter? Or shun him? Would you want him marrying your sister? Raising your kids?
Before you answer, consider at least that Dexter doesn't fool around with kids, practice graft like some very prominent Conservatives in Congress. Those men are worse than Dexter in my book. They are hypocrites who have hid their bad behavior under the label "moral" for years, right? They have judged others immoral (like President Clinton), when their sin was infinitely worse than his.
In its details, "Crocodile" confirms some of what I blogged about the premiere. To wit, Dexter comes flat out and notes that he is "the outsider looking in" on human society. This is troubling to him, however, because although he can see the pain of others, he "can't feel their pain." This observation comes up in regards to a gangster's brutal murder of a cop and his wife. Dexter attends the funeral and feels out of place. He's bored having to look grief-stricken when he really feels nothing. That's not nice, or even patient, but it doesn't speak directly to Dexter's morality. We can be moral without being polite, right? What does speak to Dexter's morality is that he wants to punish the guilty, and must weigh the consequences of doing so. To wit, he has an opportunity to kill the man who ordered the hit on the cop and his family, but to kill him then and there (in a men's room) would also expose Dexter and end his future capacity to punish the guilty. So which is the greater morality? Killing the bad guy, or preserving oneself to kill many bad guys? That's a true moral dilemma, folks.
Another one of Dexter's bad guys is Matt Chambers (alias Matt Brewster, Matt Rasmussen), a serial DUI murderer who has escaped justice in Boston and now Miami. If Dexter kills the local gangster, Matt Chambers gets away...and can kill again. So Dexter makes a choice.
What I like about this episode of Dexter, as well as each episode I've seen thus far, is that Dexter raises all these questions about morality but doesn't seem to boast a particular agenda. It seems more interested in observing and examining morality than in taking a definitive stance on it. The series doesn't sentimentalize Dexter. He calls himself a monster and does terrible things. Valid points. He also often responds to grotesque, macabre situations with tongue-in-cheek humor. So the series does not view him as a saint or anything like that...and yet he does good works. In recent years, television has given us many unusual heroes with foibles. Think of Monk, the detective with OCD; or Denny Crane, the crusading lawyer with alzheimers and a penchant for romancing younger ladies and talking out of turn. Dexter purposefully carries this trend as far as it can go, asking us to observe the life of a crusading sociopath; a man with no feelings, but who definitively does "good," who cleans up society's trash; and who is decent to his family and extended family.
Some people decry moral relativism in our culture. But after years of hearing some prominent politicians discuss "evil doers" across the globe and then categorically deny health care to children at home, I'm delighted to see a series that acknowledges that there are shades of gray in our world. Everything isn't black and white, and Dexter is the most philosophically deep program to come down the line in quite some time. It is consumed with dark questions about our existence, and what constitutes human morality.
Frankly, I'm riveted.
Frankly, the question of morality (and what constitutes morality...) is often left unexplained or undebated in our national conversation.
So far as I can discern thus far, Dexter is a unique series in that it steadfastly addresses that void. As a series, it constantly asks the question: is Dexter Morgan - a sociopath - ...moral?
Wow! How can I ask such a question? I must be a crazy liberal, right? Well bear with me okay. Consider the facts: Dexter protects and nurtures his sister, Debra. That's "good" isn't it? He also takes wonderful care of his girlfriend Rita's children. He protects them and makes them happy. That too is "good," right? Dexter even boasts his own moral code: he follows the "Rules of Harry (James Remar)," his deceased Dad. And Dexter punishes the guilty (admittedly outside the confines of law...). Is enforcing "justice" not the very definition of righteous; of morality? What do you think? Am I barking up the wrong tree here? Is there a case to be made for Dexter as a moral man?
So...Is a man who can feel nothing...capable of morality? That's the enduring and provocative interrogative that Dexter has so expertly raised, and I have to admit, I'm obsessed with the notion. Can a serial killer with no milk of human kindness, no emotions, no feelings be termed good? Can someone totally dispassionate and boasting an insatiable urge to kill, contribute to the betterment of society? Can someone who has never felt emotional pain, truly understand what it means to be human? Or, does he - lacking the barometer of emotions - better understand our existence than those of us who have our judgment clouded? I wonder. And I'm very happy that a mainstream TV series has dedicated itself to tackling so valuable a notion. It proves to me that television has indeed arrived in a new golden age. Like Twin Peaks, Star Trek or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dexter looks to me like it can be analyzed in the same manner as great literature. Based on the first two episodes, it merits that comparison.
Many questions about morality occupy "Crocodile," Dexter's sophomore episode. At one point, Dexter even asks (in voiceover) "if God is in the details - and God is in this room - God is with me." It's a fascinating point to consider: Dexter employs eye-for-an-eye, Old Testament-style judgments against the evil, and he's learned to "always be sure" that his victims are guilty. So would our society, nay should our society laud and embrace a man like Dexter? Or shun him? Would you want him marrying your sister? Raising your kids?
Before you answer, consider at least that Dexter doesn't fool around with kids, practice graft like some very prominent Conservatives in Congress. Those men are worse than Dexter in my book. They are hypocrites who have hid their bad behavior under the label "moral" for years, right? They have judged others immoral (like President Clinton), when their sin was infinitely worse than his.
In its details, "Crocodile" confirms some of what I blogged about the premiere. To wit, Dexter comes flat out and notes that he is "the outsider looking in" on human society. This is troubling to him, however, because although he can see the pain of others, he "can't feel their pain." This observation comes up in regards to a gangster's brutal murder of a cop and his wife. Dexter attends the funeral and feels out of place. He's bored having to look grief-stricken when he really feels nothing. That's not nice, or even patient, but it doesn't speak directly to Dexter's morality. We can be moral without being polite, right? What does speak to Dexter's morality is that he wants to punish the guilty, and must weigh the consequences of doing so. To wit, he has an opportunity to kill the man who ordered the hit on the cop and his family, but to kill him then and there (in a men's room) would also expose Dexter and end his future capacity to punish the guilty. So which is the greater morality? Killing the bad guy, or preserving oneself to kill many bad guys? That's a true moral dilemma, folks.
Another one of Dexter's bad guys is Matt Chambers (alias Matt Brewster, Matt Rasmussen), a serial DUI murderer who has escaped justice in Boston and now Miami. If Dexter kills the local gangster, Matt Chambers gets away...and can kill again. So Dexter makes a choice.
What I like about this episode of Dexter, as well as each episode I've seen thus far, is that Dexter raises all these questions about morality but doesn't seem to boast a particular agenda. It seems more interested in observing and examining morality than in taking a definitive stance on it. The series doesn't sentimentalize Dexter. He calls himself a monster and does terrible things. Valid points. He also often responds to grotesque, macabre situations with tongue-in-cheek humor. So the series does not view him as a saint or anything like that...and yet he does good works. In recent years, television has given us many unusual heroes with foibles. Think of Monk, the detective with OCD; or Denny Crane, the crusading lawyer with alzheimers and a penchant for romancing younger ladies and talking out of turn. Dexter purposefully carries this trend as far as it can go, asking us to observe the life of a crusading sociopath; a man with no feelings, but who definitively does "good," who cleans up society's trash; and who is decent to his family and extended family.
Some people decry moral relativism in our culture. But after years of hearing some prominent politicians discuss "evil doers" across the globe and then categorically deny health care to children at home, I'm delighted to see a series that acknowledges that there are shades of gray in our world. Everything isn't black and white, and Dexter is the most philosophically deep program to come down the line in quite some time. It is consumed with dark questions about our existence, and what constitutes human morality.
Frankly, I'm riveted.
No comments:
Post a Comment