Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Nikki And Helen. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Nikki's Rage; The early episodes
Topic Started: Jun 26 2006, 08:02 PM (2,482 Views)
campgrrls
Member Avatar
G2 landing
Quote:
 
How "radical" is Nikki? Can a person work within the system successfully? Can a person work within the system and be radical? Why is it so important that we be able to think of Nikki as radical--ie why is radical a good thing?


I agree with you abzug that BG does present some nuanced egs of the dilemmas of working within and outside the "system" in order to bring about change. I've never subscribed to the criticisms of Helen as someone who controls Nikki, whether for her own personal satisfaction, career aims or in order to "do some good". However I have used the word radical in relation to BG - generally I've said I thought the 1st series or so was quite radical, but by series 3 there was a backing off from being so groundbreaking. I think your questions about the radicalness of characters are very good and thought-provoking ones.

However I think there's a difference between saying a programme is radical and that a character is radical - though in BG's case there's some overlap. I think the implication of some interpretations is that the programme is as radical as it's characters.... However I don't always think that is the case. For me what is really radical about BG1 is that the lead characer develops a lesbian relationship with another central character, and that this is tied up with the desire of both of them to work to change, improve of overthrow an oppressive and abusive system.

I think the programme is most radical when it both exposes abuses of women in society & the prison system, and when people (largely women) join together in a joint resistance against the system. I never thought of Nikki or Helen as being particularly radical on their own. What is very radical is that they unite across the boundaries in the prison power structure to try to expose and resist a system that works for the benefit of "the old boy network." It's a direct challenge to the patriarchal class structure.

That old boy network was a simplified representation of a patriarchal system, but it made it explicit that the problem was with the system and not just one or two evil screws. Subsequent series have had radical moments IMO, but there's been a step back from exposing an abusive system. It became much more about individual stories and about one particicularly nasty screw.... and the Helen-Nikki story got moved away from the centre. Fenner still represented the prison system subtextually, but the main text tended to represent him as acting in isolation and miraculously getting way with it. There also have been moments of women working together to right wrongs. The series 3 riot was a good eg of solidarity amongst the inmates. Nikki & Helen really wanted the same thing for Femmi but became opposed in their way of going about it. However the reasons for this were more to do with their individual relationship than to do with how the "system" or prison and social structure is abusive to someone like Femi. It was kind of implied but not really exposed explcitly and not fully put in the wider context.

Now progs that IMO have really opposed a corrupt and destructive social/political or organisational structure are Edge of Darkness, Between the Lines, and from the first ep Ghost Squad. (Also Firefly -watched Serenity last weekend) EoD didn't show the good guys winning, but it showed the consequences of nuclear power in the hands of political powers who misuse it and conspire against it's own citizens who try to expose it. That abuse of power was also tied up with changes in industry and the social-economic structure. All that was front and centre in the prog., so that viewers were drawn into making sense of the issues and questioning what was going on politically at the time. BTL also exposed corruption, systemic short-comings and implicated the press in the way such activities are portrayed. It put it all in context. Ghost Squad ep 1 showed how good people can get drawn into a culture of corruption, and how dangerous it is for one of the workers to try to work out and apprehend the person or people responsible for the violent effects of such corruption - all front & centre again.

Serious political issues were raised in BG1 - with lesbian sexuality at the centre of class and gender inequalities & systemic corruption. The viewers could not help but engage with them. In later series viewers are sometimes invited to ponder on the political issues, but more often they can just focus on individual stories and struggles between good and evil without thinking about the context that produces the abuses..... until maybe it become more central in series 7.

Why is it important to be radical. Well it's important to me. When I was young in hippy times I thought a better world was on the horizon. Somethings have got better eg attitudes to homosexuality. But many things have got worse. There was a time when there were Brit TV progs that truly questioned the status quo and engaged with crucial political issues of their time. But from sometime in the 1990s Brit TV shifted to being more ratings and commercially focused. At the same time I found working within the Brit education system extremely frustrating. It's a major part of why I gave up a secure job, stable relationship and comfortable house to move back to this part of the world... eventually to become a poor grad student. I haven't had a permanent job since, but understand and identify with dilemmas of working within the system, and some of the powerlessness of working at the margins in casual, poorly paid jobs.

For me BG is always watchable in the way the Prisoner Cell Block H was watchable - foregrounds stories about women, and sometimes with ground breaking lesbian characters. But BG1 was special in a radical way that lifted it beyond a watchable show. Since then it has slipped back to being a watchable show with radical moments and a fragmented portrayal of the wider context. And given the current state of the world & TV I find it a bit discouraging - discouraging that BG took a step back and that progs like Ghost Squad, and Whedon's Firefly don't last more than one series.

Anyway ep 2 of Ghost Squad tonight.
Carolyn
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abzug
Member Avatar
In love with a prisoner
campgrrls
 
However I think there's a difference between saying a programme is radical and that a character is radical - though in BG's case there's some overlap.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. I actually brought up the topic above not in response to some of your posts about whether the show was radical, but in response to arguments like the one made by Jenni Millbank (which you disagree with, if I recall) about Nikki's own power and the concern among viewers that she was co-opted. That interpretation has never sat well with me, but it was something I hadn't yet explored. But yes, the idea of whether the show itself presents a radical viewpoint is only tangential--I would argue it doesn't present a radical viewpoint, because of the potential it presents for working within the system, particularly as a person (Helen) gets more power. Of course, Helen doesn't have the power she needs--she's still controlled by the patriarchy (ie Fenner) up until the very end.

camgprrls
 
Why is it important to be radical. Well it's important to me. When I was young in hippy times I thought a better world was on the horizon.

But don't you think a show like BG is suggesting that there are "non-radical" ways of bringing on that better world? I don't think a radical perspective or action is the only thing that can bring on change. That's where this idea of exploring whether change and reform can be brought on from within is so important. And I think BG answers this question with a qualified yes.
Visit the Bad Girls Annex!

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
richard
Member Avatar
Enhanced
I entirely agree that Helen's motives in seeking Nikki's cooperation
What is noticable is the change from the start of Series 1 where there is truly an 'us and them' situation between the prisoners and prison officers. Nikki's main complaints about the prison officers is that they don't listen to what prisoners say, that they get disbelieved when a prison officer's account differs from it, the way that things get covered up and the gross favouritism that operates. I've also had the feeling that Nikki despises the prison system with the sneaking feeling that as a businesswoman, used to handling responsibility, that she could run the place better than they could. The effect of Nikki and Helen working for the same objective from opposite sides of the prison bars is manifest in Series 2 and part of Series 3 that this tension is very much eased. Only Bodybag and Fenner get singled out for contempt.
While Nikki comes over as 'troublemaking' it is because reasonable requests are denied which fuels Nikki's feelings of anger. The other side of the coin is that Nikki never forgets a kindness done to her and repays this in similar coin- this is distinct from her growing feelings for Helen and the power of the storyline is that both strands in the storyline work so closely together.
It is noticable how completely the combination of Nikki, Babs, Crystal and the Julies are taken aback by the way that the Peckham Boot Gang took advantage of their protest which started off by the very small mistakes that Helen made in not talking to Nikki in the first place about Femi. Shed wrote that storyline very cleverly that the communication breakdown set Nikki and Helen apart even though they were working for the same goal for Femi.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ekny
No Avatar
In love with a prisoner
richard
Aug 8 2006, 08:39 AM
I've also had the feeling that Nikki despises the prison system with the sneaking feeling that as a businesswoman, used to handling responsibility, that she could run the place better than they could.

God, what a great observation, Richard, that's so beyond on target it's not even funny! Thanks, gave me a much-needed laugh this morning. --e
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Lisa289
Member Avatar
Welsh Bad Girl
The Muppets!
Well with her businesswoman background, she probably could do a pretty good job of running the prison! Now I'm not saying Helen wasn't good at her job, but I don't think Nikki would have let people like Fenner or Stubberfield overpower so much in the way Helen did in the beginning.
Posted Image

I'm Not Just Perfect - I'm Welsh
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abzug
Member Avatar
In love with a prisoner
ekny
 
Anyway, the point is that this idea abt Helen maneuvering around Nikki, although initially viewed suspiciously by Nikki (and thus, the audience) as a means to further her own goals, always but especially later has (to me) an element of impersonal interest in it: leadership is something Nikki's good at, it's a skill, and like all Helen's other attempts to encourage Nikki to do what she's good at, likes, and has a real strength in, it seems to me this very much also falls into that category. Her encouragement isn't manipulative, yes she wants a prisoner on her side, but she also wants Nikki to use those leadership skills. We see this tendency expanded esp in S2 with her job change; Helen does in fact encourage other women in their strong suits wherever possible, for their sake, not her own.

Overall I agree with you on this. But I think there is one example which is the one which troubles people, where Helen doesn't just ask Nikki to help her (and allow Nikki to make her own decision) but instead pushes her into it a bit, first with flirtation, and then with a slightly cranky reaction to Nikki's hesitation. Of course its the Pam Jolly incident I am thinking of, and even in light of your very astute analysis, it still troubles me a bit. Nikki doesn't want to help Helen with Pam on the wing. She thinks Pam is going to create problems for the wing and therefore for Helen. Helen doesn't really hear Nikki's concerns though--she's got all cylinders going on this one, and I think as an audience we're supposed to find it troubling. So Nikki goes along with Helen's wishes, against her own.

So the question in the Pam Jolly incident is how much weight should we give to the conclusion, when Nikki acknowledges that Helen was right? Even if Nikki is happy in the end that she did what Helen wanted, does that erase the core problem, which is that she did what Helen wanted and not what she wanted? I don't really have an answer to this question, and maybe there isn't one. The only thing I know is that we are supposed to be slightly troubled by the dynamic between H&N in this episode, and I am.
Visit the Bad Girls Annex!

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ekny
No Avatar
In love with a prisoner
Hey Abzug, you know I'd reply in more detail if I could but can't today, apologies. Will just say for now this is one of the times we *do* see Helen apologize back, which is hardly a small deal. We're never asked to question her sincerity when she apologizes: she means it. As for slightly troubled, I agree w/your estimation that H's on semi-auto here, this is right in the middle of the season & she's kind of talked herself into believing she can straddle these two worlds, pull off this whole balancing act she's got going, so she's not really hearing Nikki try to voice objections, she just wants her to say Yes.

But I guess my doubts on this are not the same as the ones you phrased thus:

abzug
 
So the question in the Pam Jolly incident is how much weight should we give to the conclusion, when Nikki acknowledges that Helen was right? Even if Nikki is happy in the end that she did what Helen wanted, does that erase the core problem, which is that she did what Helen wanted and not what she wanted?

I'd make a distinction between what they personally might have wanted, emotionally, from each other, & what their beliefs about *Pam's* situation mean in terms of an approach. As such it's an excellent example of some of the things that've come up recently... Nikki's aware that Pam is very large, with the kind of strength fueled by mania that's especially dangerous: Pam, plainly speaking, can be physically hazardous to other women, not only herself. We've seen this borne out: P's attack on Shell (who's not incapable of some measure of self-defense). Helen wants to get at what she sees to be Pam's core problems: lack of psychological diagnosis in case her condition is treatable (twelve years w/o any such treatment is in itself a gross miscarriage of justice, and the woman who plays Pam is good enough to give us an excellent sense of how this character has suffered over that time, esp during the extended interview w/Thomas), and some attempts (where Nikki comes in) to alleviate P's extreme isolation.

In short, Helen's worried about cause; Nikki, about effect. So I found the mutuality of their apologizing very fitting. Helen acknowledges Pam can be physically dangerous; Nikki acknowledges Pam needs help, friends, & treatment.

Shit. You see... this is why I was staying OFF today! so much for not a lot of detail. Erm. Sorry to hit & run? --e
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abzug
Member Avatar
In love with a prisoner
campgrrls
 
For me what is really radical about BG1 is that the lead characer develops a lesbian relationship with another central character, and that this is tied up with the desire of both of them to work to change, improve of overthrow an oppressive and abusive system.

I've been thinking about this a lot today, and from the above definition, it would seem that a show like The L Word would be considered radical. The character of Bette and her romantic life is central to the show. She is shown repeatedly to be an activist, fighting against the prudishness and homophobia of the government, society etc. But I think we would all disagree with this particular conclusion. In the end, these things are awfully hard to define, to pin down.

ekny
 
I'd make a distinction between what they personally might have wanted, emotionally, from each other, & what their beliefs about *Pam's* situation mean in terms of an approach.

Oh, absolutely. And in bringing up the example, I am referring to the latter, not the former. But I'm still not sure why that means you don't share the doubts I do. Is it because Helen also comes to understand Nikki's side, and not just the other way around? Its funny because I totally forgot that Helen apologized for the Pam Jolly business. I wonder why that is? What was it that made me remember Nikki's apology but not Helen's? Some emotional, non-rational reaction, the pain of seeing Nikki accommodating Helen after the one time she tried to stand up to her? Its very strange the way things can get altered in one's memory.
Visit the Bad Girls Annex!

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campgrrls
Member Avatar
G2 landing
abzug
Aug 9 2006, 01:27 PM
campgrrls
 
For me what is really radical about BG1 is that the lead characer develops a lesbian relationship with another central character, and that this is tied up with the desire of both of them to work to change, improve of overthrow an oppressive and abusive system.

I've been thinking about this a lot today, and from the above definition, it would seem that a show like The L Word would be considered radical. The character of Bette and her romantic life is central to the show. She is shown repeatedly to be an activist, fighting against the prudishness and homophobia of the government, society etc. But I think we would all disagree with this particular conclusion. In the end, these things are awfully hard to define, to pin down.


A fair comment. I think I didn't include some of the other features that I have in the past when talking about BG's pushing of boundaries. In comparison with L Word I think BG1 is more radical because, in addition to what I said before, it is made for Prime Time free to air TV, and targets a general population. It doesn't make being lesbian a central focus of the show, but puts other political issues at the centre. That's part of why I consider it to be radical & pushed the boundaries. The BG style also is a contributing factor - based in a mixture of soap and Brit social realist drama conventions.

Bette may be pretty central to the L Word, but in the series I've seen, the main focus was on Jenny. Furthermore BG1 was more built around struggles against a patriachal and abusive system. In contrast social activism must be built around the Bette character rather than the show as it's not something I'm strongly aware of in the series I've seen (ie series 1 & 2).
Carolyn
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
richard
Member Avatar
Enhanced
The scenes with Pam are very interesting. I got the feeling that Helen was focussed on a distant horizon that Pam is treatable and could be different. Nikki's attitude is interesting. She realises that Pam is one of Helen's 'crusades' and up till now invariably participates in them. In this case, Nikki has her doubts in terms of Pam being able to be turned round, in her own ability to look after Pam on the wing and in the sense that there are dangers in Helen's crusade that it would blow back in her face. She goes along with Helen on sheer loyalty, not in terms of conviction.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campgrrls
Member Avatar
G2 landing
abzug
Aug 8 2006, 11:43 PM
But don't you think a show like BG is suggesting that there are "non-radical" ways of bringing on that better world? I don't think a radical perspective or action is the only thing that can bring on change. That's where this idea of exploring whether change and reform can be brought on from within is so important. And I think BG answers this question with a qualified yes.

Well I was in the middle of posting a comment on this when there was a power cut in our area for over an hour... so I lost everything I'd typed.

Hmmm. I was thinking that maybe we mean something different by the term "radical". If it's doing something to bring a better world that I would say it's radical. I do agree that BG & Shed's answer is probably that change can be brought about from within the system. I think in many ways Helen is representative of Shed's position. They do work within the popular manistream of television and not within alternative filmmaking for instance.

I'm not sure how much change can be brought from within though. It may be that the best one can do is do things a little better than others have done: a little tinkering here, helping a small number of people here. But for me real change would mean major systemic changes. That's what was going on in education in London and other parts of England when Thatcher shut it down and totally restructured things. My experience was that there was a limit to how anyone could operate within that, however much power they had because the system was set from the very top in the government. There were times when I was told that my head of Dept agreed with my protests about what we were being asked to do, but then told me we had no choice - I HAD to do as I was told.

In BG 1 we see Helen wrestling with such a system. By series 3 it's not that clear who has appointed her to the positions she is in, nor what the obstacles are for the kind of vision she has for the prison. We see her achieving some success in setting up the Lifer's Unit, and we see Helen having some sucess with individuals. The major conflict we see is over Femmi. But I don't see evidence of widespread change in the system or that Helen is working towards that. She just gets focused on Fenner.

And similarly for Shed and BG. They have popular success with BG, but I don't see widespread changes within mainstream TV to include more focus on the issues they raise. In fact just the opposite. The current structure of Brit (and NZ) TV doesn't make for any radical change in media or society - it generally conforms to the system as set by those with the most power in the country.

Now it's time to watch Waterloo Road.
Carolyn
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abzug
Member Avatar
In love with a prisoner
campgrrls
 
In comparison with L Word I think BG1 is more radical because, in addition to what I said before, it is made for Prime Time free to air TV, and targets a general population. It doesn't make being lesbian a central focus of the show, but puts other political issues at the centre.

I agree with all your conclusions here, although its an interesting (and tenuous?) balance, because what makes BG radical in this assessment is that the world depicted is a more "general" one (ie not completely lesbian, as in the L Word) and the show has a broader political focus, while still keeping a lesbian relationship at its core. But of course if its the duality (ie preoccupation with both a lesbian relationship AND the political issues of a broader population) there is always going to be an ebb and flow as to which one gets more focus at a given time. The L Word is the only show where the lesbian focus is guaranteed, and in a way that makes it boring for me to watch, because there's no tension there, no matter how many times they have Bette testify before Congress or appear on conservative tv programs advocating a liberal perspective, it still feels false because in reality the "outside" (ie non-gay world) has no impact on these lesbians. While on BG, the "outside" world has overwhelming impact on all the characters, gay and straight, to the point that sometimes it drives them apart.

campgrrls
 
If it's doing something to bring a better world that I would say it's radical. I do agree that BG & Shed's answer is probably that change can be brought about from within the system. I think in many ways Helen is representative of Shed's position. They do work within the popular manistream of television and not within alternative filmmaking for instance.

I'm not sure how much change can be brought from within though.

Its interesting, because as you point out, as a person with a radical worldview (ie change needs to come from outside, not within the system), you're probably never going to find a commercial television program fully satisfying. BG probably has more potential to disappoint than most, given that the show examines such key issues like power, patriarchy and corruption, but then often comes up with a more moderate answer in terms of the potential for change. Of course, sometimes the show takes the radical approach, like with Fenner's demise, which could only be accomplished through vigilante justice. The system was definitely powerless to bring him down, no matter who was working for it.

campgrrls
 
In BG 1 we see Helen wrestling with such a system. By series 3 it's not that clear who has appointed her to the positions she is in, nor what the obstacles are for the kind of vision she has for the prison. We see her achieving some success in setting up the Lifer's Unit, and we see Helen having some sucess with individuals. The major conflict we see is over Femmi. But I don't see evidence of widespread change in the system or that Helen is working towards that. She just gets focused on Fenner.

I think in S3 they were trying to give us the impression that Helen was accomplishing broader-based change. Whether they succeeded or not is up for discussion (I think they did, but I can see your concerns). But yes, to some extent after Helen is assaulted, her personal vendetta takes over (although her work with Femi comes after the assault, so she's still actively working to help the prisoners, come up with flexible solutions within the system). I think we are supposed to have concerns about Helen's focus on Fenner, to think that she has lost her way a bit. And I don't think its an accident that Helen losing her way in regards to Fenner coincides with her growing interest in and involvement with Thomas.
Visit the Bad Girls Annex!

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Nikki · Next Topic »
Add Reply