Waltz and Dukat

[Too Much Fun]

opinion

My feelings exactly.

Well that's a first.

 

[Myasishchev]

^

I'm also a bit surprised they were going to off him. Too bad they didn't follow through.

 

[JustKate]

As for this "there's no such thing as black and white" stuff, I have to humbly disagree. I know it's a bitter pill to swallow but there really ARE monstrous people out there who really are just bad to the core, and there are people out there who are capable of genuine kindness and compassion despite being in a bad situation. Frankly, whenever I hear how it's "immature" or "silly" to think that the world is only grey I can only think that it's just as immature or silly to refuse that there could be black and white in the world. It almost comes off as cowardly, to refuse to accept that maybe there are very bad people out there or that there's such a thing as a good person, because it can be used to ignore situations thinking "Well, the world isn't black and white so it's best not to get involved" or "there's two sides to this so we better think out everything" when it's obvious who's good and bad.

VERY well-said: I am in complete agreement!

Me, too.

While I found Dukat more compelling when he was conflicted and controversial, I also am not that bothered by the way his character changed in the end. The way I interpreted Dukat after "Waltz" is that while he may not have been pure evil all along - e.g., his love for Ziyal and for his Cardassian family - that's what he became. Or if not 100 percent evil, pretty damn close to it. And he actively chose that path, and choice (in my theology anyway) is a major component of genuine evil.

And besides, if they'd killed him off, we wouldn't have had Dukat as a cult leader in "Covenant," which would have been a HUGE loss. Alaimo was great in that - absolutely fabulous.

 

[DevilEyes]

I didn't have a problem with "Waltz" at the time - I did think that Sisko's line was a bit too much of sweeping statement, but OTOH, I thought that they were right about Dukat being basically an evil man - not absolutely evil, no, but still a lot more evil than good. I enjoyed him being conflicted and controversial, showing different sides to his personality, and even sometimes being an unlikely ally of Sisko and Kira, it brought interest and tension to the show, especially since Mark Alaimo made the character so charismatic. But, I would never buy a "redemption" story for him that some fans seemed to be hoping for. He was never the type to be "redeemed" because he never acknowledged that he had done anything wrong, he never felt guilt or took responsability for his crimes. He just kept finding excuses and trying to make himself look good, and then was angry when people didn't appreciate what a wonderful guy he was because he didn't kill as many people as he could have and treated the Bajorans better than he could have - it never occured to him that he and the other Cardassians never had the right to occupy and mistreat Bajorans in the first place. So, in that respect, "Waltz" seemed like a truthful and logical exploration of his psyche. I think Ron Moore put it very well:

I don't think of him as being completely evil through and through to the point where every thought, every impulse is shaded by a nefarious agenda or horrid motive. We've seen other aspects to this guy over the years. He can be charming. He can be generous. He can do the right thing. All of that somehow makes his "evil" actions all the more despicable, because we know that there was the potential in there for him to be a better person. But sometimes the clichés are true: Hitler loved his dog. No human being (and by extension, no Cardassian) is one hundred percent pure evil. But there is a "critical mass", if you will, where the dark deeds attributed to one person become so overwhelming that they swamp all the redeeming characteristics. Dukat is a bad guy. A very bad guy. He has a lot of blood on his hands and it's hard to see how his smile and innate charm can wipe that clean.

However - was the whole Pah-wraiths thing really needed? Not just Dukat and the Pah-wraiths, but Pah-wraiths in general? Up to that point, I thought that the show managed to treat religion in a very intelligent way. But then they had to introduce a good/evil dychotomy in Prophets and Pah-wraiths - complete with red eyes. If they were presented as just two warring factions of aliens, fine. But we were obviously meant to think that the Prophers were good, and the Pah-wraiths evil, and to hammer it home, they associated Dukat and Winn, the villains, with the Pah-wraiths, just as Sisko was associated with the Prophets. At that point, it felt like DS9, the show I praised many times for its intelligent, challenging and nuanced storylines, was simply telegraphing the audience what they're supposed to think. Maybe they felt that too many people liked Dukat to the point of excusing his actions, thinking of him as a relatively good guy, etc. so they decided to put a stop to it by saying "yes, he is eeeevil" in a sledgehammer-subtle way. To me, this looks like an instance of disrespecting the audience's intelligence. Why couldn't have Dukat remained just an egotistical, deluded, self-important asshole and war criminal? Why did he have to become literally possessed by an 'evil spirit'?

Although, come to think of it, it was actually more of the case of the Pah-wraiths being identified as evil through association with Dukat and his actions related to them, then the other way round. What really bugs me is that we never really learned who and what Pah-wraiths are and why they do what they do. So, apart from having red eyes, which immediately screams "EEEVIL!" they were responsible for killing Jadzia, and they apparently want to kill all Bajorans... But why? Why do they want the Bajorans to be killed? But what is even more problematic - introducing the Pah-wraiths as Evil beings seemed to cement the idea of the Prophets as being Good. A little too simplistic, isn't it? I don't have a problem with obviously paralleling Christian myths through stories about aliens; that could have worked, if only they had made it more complex. And while we had some evidence of the Pah-wraiths being evil, I really don't know why we're supposed to think of the Prophets as good? Because they're into Sisko, who is half-Prophet in a way, and whose birth they planned and set up?

 

[JustKate]

I read that Ron Moore bit for the first time just last week, DevilEyes - I agree that it's right on target. I would say, though, that in Dukat's case, the "critical mass" was really weighted toward the evil side...more toward the end, yes, but everything - the capacity for great good but also for enormous evil - was there in right from the very beginning. And that's thanks largely to Alaimo, IMO.

An example would be Dukat's protestations of how well he treated the Bajorans. This was a wonderful indication of character not only because it made him more realistic, but also because that is how a truly bad person manages to hide from himself the fact that he is bad. "I could have been much worse" is a very...seductive idea, and Dukat let himself be seduced by it. And by a lot of other stuff, too.

 

[Nerys Ghemor]

DevilEyes--The only way a redemption story could've worked would be for it to be very extreme. He would have to be completely overcome by his sins and the realization of them, much like St. Paul was on the road to Damascus. While such things can and do happen in real life, there tends to be a lot of disbelief surrounding them as well, a lot of controversy. And for it to happen on a TV show--I'm sure the disbelief and controversy would be MORE so.

 

[Myasishchev]

It worked for Darth Vader. Or so we're supposed to feel at the end of RotJ.

 

[Anwar]

Yeah, it sort of falls apart when you think "Vader he saved his son. But does that really make up for the billions of people he killed?", but since Star Wars is really just supposed to be a fairy tale in space and not go much deeper than that having the main characters feel someone is "redeemed" is enough at face value.

 

[Terra Pryme]

However - was the whole Pah-wraiths thing really needed? Not just Dukat and the Pah-wraiths, but Pah-wraiths in general? Up to that point, I thought that the show managed to treat religion in a very intelligent way. But then they had to introduce a good/evil dychotomy in Prophets and Pah-wraiths - complete with red eyes. If they were presented as just two warring factions of aliens, fine. But we were obviously meant to think that the Prophers were good, and the Pah-wraiths evil, and to hammer it home, they associated Dukat and Winn, the villains, with the Pah-wraiths, just as Sisko was associated with the Prophets. At that point, it felt like DS9, the show I praised many times for its intelligent, challenging and nuanced storylines, was simply telegraphing the audience what they're supposed to think. Maybe they felt that too many people liked Dukat to the point of excusing his actions, thinking of him as a relatively good guy, etc. so they decided to put a stop to it by saying "yes, he is eeeevil" in a sledgehammer-subtle way. To me, this looks like an instance of disrespecting the audience's intelligence. Why couldn't have Dukat remained just an egotistical, deluded, self-important asshole and war criminal? Why did he have to become literally possessed by an 'evil spirit'?

To me, Dukat allying himself with the Pah-Wraiths was necessary. First, the Cardassian-Dominion Alliance wasn't working the way he wanted for he did not have complete control. He and the Cardies answered primarily to the Founders. And notice in "Call to Arms", Dukat himself had to answer to Weyoun when he wanted to take control of the Bajorans like he did during the Occupation. Because they signed the non-aggression pact, he couldn't touch them. Second, because the Prophets were key to the Alliance's first defeat in "Sacrifice of Angels", what better way to get vengenace than to make his own alliance with the the only beings who could battle the Prophets. And because there are Bajorans who follow the Pah-Wraiths, Dukat could easily find a way to manipulate them like he did in "Covenant". Eventually, the C/D Alliance began to deteriorate toward the end of the series and there were obvious signs they were going to lose the war. At this point, Dukat only had cravings for power and there's no way he'd be able to get any by battling the Dominon. It's unlikely he would been working with Damar's resistance, and certainly not with Kira. That would have been nothing more than a distraction considering the love/hate relationship between them. The Pah-Wraiths most certainly would have gotten him supreme power, but ultimately, thanks to the Emissary, led to Dukat's final fate.

 

[Anwar]

Yeah, for Dukat beneath his "For Cardassia!" attitude he's always been a power-hungry bastard out for himself. He did it in a fashion that kept up his act as a civilized Cardassian but it was always there. Once Ziyal died and his family disowned him he had no real reason to keep up his facade anymore and showed his real self, along with a heaping of insanity.

 

[JustKate]

That's a good point, Anwar. I agree that for Dukat, it was never about Cardassia - it was always about Dukat. In contrast, Garak (and while I enjoy Garak, I can't say as I really admire the guy) was genuinely patriotic...or at least he was as genuine about that as it was possible for him to be about anything.

 

[flemm]

DS9 dealt with shades of gray a lot. I thought that Dukat's final transformation and the existence of the Pagh Wraith were there to make sure the show recognized that, among the many shades of gray, there remains true evil, and true good, which consists largely in opposing that evil.

Dukat became evil, but so did the Pagh Wraith, before it was cast out of the Celestial Temple. So did the Devil in Paradise Lost, the Fallen Angel who was cast out of heaven. Evil exists, but it is not necessarily evil from the beginning.

The above doesn't stop the Pagh Wraith from being shallow and one-dimensional, which they were, mostly because the writers never really devoted adequate time to providing them with depth. But I still think they make a meaningful contribution to the overall canvas of the show.

 

[Anwar]

That's okay, the Vorlons and Shadows are also shallow and one-dimensional when you think about it but no one notices because they pay more attention to the other characters affected by them.

 

[DevilEyes]

One thing I'd like to add to what I posted before on the subject. The episode would have been really excellent if it weren't for two things:

1) Sisko's line about "true evil". Whatever you think about Dukat being or not being "true evil", was that really necessary? Subtle as a sledgehammer. Sisko's sarcastic "And that's why you're not an evil man" would have been more than enough, and I only wish they had kept it at that. Is Star Trek able to respect the viewers' intelligence?
2) the fact that it started the entire "Dukat aligns himself with Pah-wraiths" crap. Caused by the same reason as 1) above.

And yes, I maintain that not just Dukat with the Pah-wraiths, but THE ENTIRE PAH-WRAITHS STORYLINE was utter rubbish and a total disgrace for a show that I used to think of as a example that Star Trek can be phychologically realistic, morally complex, and even to deal with religion in an intelligent way.

But the main reason I am resurrecting this thread is because I came across an old interview with Ira Steven Behr about Dukat. I realise that some of you might have already read it, but I have only read some quotes from it before. While I can see where Behr was coming from and why he felt the way he felt, I think this interview pinpoints exactly where he gets it wrong.

http://trekweb.com/stories.php?aid=SdNrK8202hgIc&mailtofriend=1

n the May 2002 issue of Star Trek: The Magazine, former DEEP SPACE NINE executive producer Ira Steven Behr talks at length about the decisions behind the development of Marc Alaimo's 'Gul Dukat', the major villain throughout the series's run.

Behr remembers how in the pilot, the character was originally played by another actor: "Let's just say we all agreed that perhaps we had made a less than perfect choice and that the part had to be recast. Someone said 'What about Marc Alaimo?' because he had done TNG, and there you go... From that point on my model for Dukat was Alaimo. That's a real compliment; He presented us with so many opportunities."

Behr explains that the character as he conceived him was to be ruthless and without sympathy, a characterization difficult to maintain through the seven seasons: "The problem I find with a lot of writers, including myself, is that once you get involved with a character you start to get to know him and you humanize him. Michael Piller did the rewrite of 'Defiant' where he had Dukat talk about his children; My reaction was, 'Uh oh, we've crossed the line.' I realized that he was going to lose all credibility as a villain; we were going to shower him with our usual writerish empathy, and, like all good liberals, we'd see him as neither fish or fowl." "I really responded against that. Here was the guy who had been in charge of Bajor, and right away we were looking for excuses for him."

Behr continues, saying there was always a tension between romanticizing 'Dukat' as a villain and paintaing him as a sort of war-criminal: "I had certainly done my bit in making Dukat a kind of swashbuckling villain, but I always thought the Cardassians were horrific; I think anyone who doesn't is obviously confused. They did a horrible thing, and I have little sympathy for that."

But actor Marc Alaimo, who had become quite popular with the show's fans, had a different view of the character, seeing him as ultimately redeemable. Behr explains how this actually helped feed into creating the character the way he wanted: "What made it perfect, what made it beautiful, and that no writer could have conceived of, was that Alaimo took it in his head that he was the hero of the series - that Dukat was really just misunderstood; that he was sweet and kind. *

"Whenever I think of the character, I think of Renoir's line from 'The Rules of the Game': 'The tragedy of life is that every man has his reasons.' Dukat could logically explain away everything he did, he could find justifications for all of it, and that's the horror; that's the thing Alaimo and I were always in disagreement about. His attitude was, 'We all have this inside of us, we're all many different people, and no one is truly evil.' Then I'd say, 'OK, if you take that to its conclusion, then no one has to stand accountable for their actions.'"

Much to the producer/writer's chagrin, many fans began to see the character and the Cardassians as "sexy" rather than horrific: "We'd sit in the writers room and laugh about it sometimes. We'd get the Cardassian newsletter and look at it and think, 'What has gone wrong?' of course it's science fiction; you put makeup on and suddenly it's OK. If it's Idi Amin or Pol Pot no one's thinking of spending a romantic weekend in his arms; but you give him a bony neck and a rubber outfit, and it's a whole different thing."

In the latter seasons, as the writers began mapping out how the Cardassians would eventually overthrow the Dominion's yoke, Behr says he intentionally steered away from the temptation to valorize 'Dukat' and turn him into the hero that evetually became of actor Casey Biggs's 'Damar'.

"We were able to have a guy (Damar) who had been pushed too far. That was something you could never really get from Alaimo's character, because he would never allow himself to be subjected to that kind of treatment in the first place. I couldn't accept that Dukat would become the savior of Cardassia," he said. "I'm sure his fans would have adored it, and Alaimo would have loved it, but there were too many instances where he was false. It wasn't credible, and I know the man who had to be there at the very end to speak for Cardassia was Garak, as the true outsider.

"If it had been Dukat, it would have been too romantic. We went that way with Damar to an extent, which is why we killed him the way we did - fast, and before the end of the show. I know people felt that he deserved something better, but that was a very calculated move. Imagine if we'd done that with Dukat? I mean, forget it."

In the end, Behr says he's mostly pleased with how the character met his end fittingly: "I think he got what he deserved, let me put it like that. I can't say I feel sorry for him, I really don't. He and Winn were two characters I just could not sympathize with. Though we tried in all fairness to give them their points of view and give them their attitudes, they were very deluded, and they did horrible things."

*So this is where this quote comes from, and why you see people claiming that "Marc Alaimo was quoted saying that he saw Dukat as the hero of DS9" even though I've never seen Alaimo say anything like that, only that he was trying to "branch emotionally" and play Dukat as a multi-faceted character. And since Behr is the source, I'd take this with a grain of salt. Lots of salt. I find it funny that he thinks it is such an astonishing thing that an actor is looking for more complexity in his character and trying to find sympathetic sides to him. I don't believe that one can give a great and deep performance while hating one's character 100% and not finding him sympathetic at all, whatever the character is like. But Behr sounds like he has a problem with it, and only reluctantly admits that this was, in the end, a good thing. "We tried in all fairness to give them their point of view..." Oh gosh, you tried? So you think you did not succeed? I can almost see him gnashing him teeth: "ugh, you know, I think we need to give these villains some motivation and point of view, you know, that kind of crap...people these days ask for that kind of thing... but let's not go too far with it..."

All through the interview, he sounds like he only reluctantly allowed Dukat to become more than a moustache-twirling cartoon villain, and that he really regrets it. It's sad really, when you realize that, contrary to what many of DS9's fans and haters believe, DS9's showrunner was not really able to escape the confines of Star Trek's PREACH - EXPLAIN TO THE VIEWERS WHAT THEY SHOULD THINK- HIT THEM OVER THE HEAD WITH IT IF YOU NEED TO sledghehammer-subtle approach to storytelling. (But at least the other Treks didn't mix it with religion, so we didn't get the magic books, evip spirit possessions and red glowing eyes. )

One thing that baffles me is that from the wat not only Behr, but pretty much everyone, keeps talking, you'd think that Dukat having a 'redemption' arc and Dukat becoming the eeeeevil-spirit possessed dark messiah were the only two possible ways he could have gone. Why? Why does everyone have to have a 'redemption' arc, or be confirmed as 'absolute evil'? What was wrong with the way he was before the Pah-wraiths? Why couldn't he just stayed a complex, but completely human (well, Cardassian - but you know what I mean; aliens are just the stand-ins for humans anyway) villain?

If you're going to compare fictional villains from your show to the real-life war criminals, dictators and such - then why not keep it true to life? There's something so unrealistic about that conviction that people When you look at so many of the people in reali life who have done horribly evil things - fact is, most of them don't achieve 'redemption', but they don't go crazy and get possessed by 'evil spirits' either. They just remain the way they are.

These two quotes really epitomize where exactly Behr gets it wrong:

The problem I find with a lot of writers, including myself, is that once you get involved with a character you start to get to know him and you humanize him. Michael Piller did the rewrite of 'Defiant' where he had Dukat talk about his children; My reaction was, 'Uh oh, we've crossed the line.' I realized that he was going to lose all credibility as a villain; we were going to shower him with our usual writerish empathy, and, like all good liberals, we'd see him as neither fish or fowl." "I really responded against that. Here was the guy who had been in charge of Bajor, and right away we were looking for excuses for him."

Um... no. Showing that Dukat loves his children has absolutely nothing to do with making excuses with him. It has absolutely nothing to do with the occupation of Bajor. What is Behr saying? That you are only responsible of a crime if you are some sort of inhuman monster? That if a person is not a complete monster who hates the entire world, if they are 'normal people' with families, wives and children - that this 'excuses' their racism, colonialistic attitudes and crimes against a group of people they consider inferior? I can't even begin to tell how completely wrong this is.

Guess what: most of the real-life despots, higher and lower ranked war criminals, colonial masters, vicious slave-owners... you name it... had families, friends, followers and fans, loved their children, loved their pets, were considered charming and attractive by some people, had a 'normal' life... but loving their children didn't stop them commiting atrocities that they considered justified. I've never heard "he's a great dad" used in an indicted war criminal's defense in the International Tribunal. Have you?

...that's the thing Alaimo and I were always in disagreement about. His attitude was, 'We all have this inside of us, we're all many different people, and no one is truly evil.' Then I'd say, 'OK, if you take that to its conclusion, then no one has to stand accountable for their actions.'"

Um... no, no, no. No. What "conclusion" does Behr thinks comes from this attitude? If you're not "absolutely evil" or "truly evil", you aren't accountable for your actions?! That doesn't make any sense to me.

Come to think of it, isn't it actually the opposite? If there was such a thing as evil by nature, then wouldn't it excuse a person - if you're evil by nature, you can't help doing evil things, can you? But I believe that there is no such thing. I happen to agree that we all have this inside of us, more or less. The question is, how it develops and what you do with it. A lot depends on upbringing, experiences, environment... but ultimately, it is most of all, a matter of the choices we make. We are all capable of doing good or evil - and it's our choices that make the difference.

But the capacity for both good and evil is there in everyone. And that's what is trully scary and disturbing. It's so much easier to think that evil is done by some inhuman monsters. But in fact, it can be one of our friends or relatives, it can be our nice next-door neighbour. I've heard my relatives, co-workers, kids at a school I used to teach in, people at the library I visit - all nice, sweet, normal people with families and friends and ordinary jobs - utter horrible, racist, atrocious statements that could have come out of the mouth of some war criminal. Whatever the reason - brainwashing by the media? ignorance? influence of the environment? - who says that they couldn't cross the line, in some other circumstances, and slaughter people? At the very least, they are able to support it. I remember when "Die Untergang" came out, and some people were really upset that, OMG, they are portraying Hitler as a human being! Well, of course they are. What else do you think he was?! OMG, they are showing that he was able to be nice and charming to the people who worked for him! Well, of course he was. Do you think anyone would have followed him otherwise? And if it hadn't been Hitler, it could have been someone else. It's never about one person. It could be your next-door neighbour or your sweet elderly aunt who is a perfectly nice, except that he/she really hates "those people". (And the same thing happened when Antonia Bird shot "Hamburg Cell" about the highjackers of 9/11. Again, lots of outraged reactions: OMG, we can't have a movie that attempts to understand the motivations of Al Quaeda suicidal terrorists, that is the same as jusfying what the ydid! We can't have people see them as anything but shapeless faceless monsters, or they might see them as sympathetic! Seriously, guys - grow up.)

But ultimately it is all about the choices we make. We may be lovely people in other regards, we may be charming and attractive, intelligent and artistic, we may be great friends and love our parents, spouses and children, we may be loyal and even idealistic. It doesn't excuse us in any way if we commit a crime or an evil deed. We are all responsible and accountable for all actions and our choices.

 

[PSGarak]

One thing I'd like to add to what I posted before on the subject. The episode would have been really excellent if it weren't for two things:

1) Sisko's line about "true evil". Whatever you think about Dukat being or not being "true evil", was that really necessary? Subtle as a sledgehammer. Sisko's sarcastic "And that's why you're not an evil man" would have been more than enough, and I only wish they had kept it at that. Is Star Trek able to respect the viewers' intelligence?
2) the fact that it started the entire "Dukat aligns himself with Pah-wraiths" crap. Caused by the same reason as 1) above.

And yes, I maintain that not just Dukat with the Pah-wraiths, but THE ENTIRE PAH-WRAITHS STORYLINE was utter rubbish and a total disgrace for a show that I used to think of as a example that Star Trek can be phychologically realistic, morally complex, and even to deal with religion in an intelligent way.

I agree with you 100%. It struck me as ham fisted, heavy handed, and utterly and completely ridiculous. If anything, having somebody possessed with "evil spirits" pretty much absolves them from any further choices or decisions made, because at that point, it's no longer their free will. It's like trying to hold Reagan O'Neil responsible for the death of Father Merrin instead of the demon within her. By turning it into some sort of preachy morality play about who has the evil, they devolved into unintentional farce.

*So this is where this quote comes from, and why you see people claiming that "Marc Alaimo was quoted saying that he saw Dukat as the hero of DS9" even though I've never seen Alaimo say anything like that, only that he was trying to "branch emotionally" and play Dukat as a multi-faceted character. And since Behr is the source, I'd take this with a grain of salt. Lots of salt. I find it funny that he thinks it is such an astonishing thing that an actor is looking for more complexity in his character and trying to find sympathetic sides to him. I don't believe that one can give a great and deep performance while hating one's character 100% and not finding him sympathetic at all, whatever the character is like. But Behr sounds like he has a problem with it, and only reluctantly admits that this was, in the end, a good thing. "We tried in all fairness to give them their point of view..." Oh gosh, you tried? So you think you did not succeed? I can almost see him gnashing him teeth: "ugh, you know, I think we need to give these villains some motivation and point of view, you know, that kind of crap...people these days ask for that kind of thing... but let's not go too far with it..."

It was in giving them that point of view and making it at least understandable if not sympathetic that the story and the show gained a lot of its strength. There are a lot of reasons I rank DS9 as my favorite Trek right up there with TOS. I will readily and willingly admit that much of my love for TOS is nostalgia and the fact that I grew up with it. However, I was introduced to DS9 well into adulthood, and it was the first Trek I had seen that I believed approached its audience as reasoning, thinking adults who don't need black and white conflict spoon fed them so they can feel good about themselves and what they're watching.

One thing that baffles me is that from the wat not only Behr, but pretty much everyone, keeps talking, you'd think that Dukat having a 'redemption' arc and Dukat becoming the eeeeevil-spirit possessed dark messiah were the only two possible ways he could have gone. Why? Why does everyone have to have a 'redemption' arc, or be confirmed as 'absolute evil'? What was wrong with the way he was before the Pah-wraiths? Why couldn't he just stayed a complex, but completely human (well, Cardassian - but you know what I mean; aliens are just the stand-ins for humans anyway) villain?

If you're going to compare fictional villains from your show to the real-life war criminals, dictators and such - then why not keep it true to life? There's something so unrealistic about that conviction that people When you look at so many of the people in reali life who have done horribly evil things - fact is, most of them don't achieve 'redemption', but they don't go crazy and get possessed by 'evil spirits' either. They just remain the way they are.

This is true, too. I've met some real life examples of this in criminals I had contact with due to a job and also a few veterans of various wars who told me things I would rather not have known about them. It was very hard to resolve the people seated before me with the actions I knew of. They clearly had a lot of good in them, but with the veterans I'm mentioning in particular, they also had some really ugly bigotry that had not changed at all since the war. I believed that at least some of them would all too gladly do again what they had done before, and one of them confirmed that outright. Was he a good man? Yes. Was he a bad man? Yes. I knew him twenty years ago, and I am conflicted about him to this day.

These two quotes really epitomize where exactly Behr gets it wrong:

The problem I find with a lot of writers, including myself, is that once you get involved with a character you start to get to know him and you humanize him. Michael Piller did the rewrite of 'Defiant' where he had Dukat talk about his children; My reaction was, 'Uh oh, we've crossed the line.' I realized that he was going to lose all credibility as a villain; we were going to shower him with our usual writerish empathy, and, like all good liberals, we'd see him as neither fish or fowl." "I really responded against that. Here was the guy who had been in charge of Bajor, and right away we were looking for excuses for him."

Um... no. Showing that Dukat loves his children has absolutely nothing to do with making excuses with him. It has absolutely nothing to do with the occupation of Bajor. What is Behr saying? That you are only responsible of a crime if you are some sort of inhuman monster? That if a person is not a complete monster who hates the entire world, if they are 'normal people' with families, wives and children - that this 'excuses' their racism, colonialistic attitudes and crimes against a group of people they consider inferior? I can't even begin to tell how completely wrong this is.

Guess what: most of the real-life despots, higher and lower ranked war criminals, colonial masters, vicious slave-owners... you name it... had families, friends, followers and fans, loved their children, loved their pets, were considered charming and attractive by some people, had a 'normal' life... but loving their children didn't stop them commiting atrocities that they considered justified. I've never heard "he's a great dad" used in an indicted war criminal's defense in the International Tribunal. Have you?

You don't hear it in war crime trials, but you do hear things like that in criminal court. The one thing that I did get from the Behr interview is that he is frustrated that people will sympathize with a fictional villain, but I think in that he is missing the entire point of stories that explore shades of gray. All of us have dark depths. Many of us are lucky in that we're never triggered to the point we do something with that part of ourselves, but it's there. To deny it just gives it more power in the subconscious. Enjoying a good villain is a healthy outlet for that shadow side, a way of playing with something dark and dangerous without anybody getting hurt.

While I enjoyed the dark episodes that dealt with the occupation and was able to enjoy some of Dukat's darker moments, there is a huge difference between enjoying that and, say, moments in the documentary "Nanking" when the atrocities are being related by the victims. The fact that Behr seems to equate the two tells me he is in pretty deep denial of his own shadow issues.

...that's the thing Alaimo and I were always in disagreement about. His attitude was, 'We all have this inside of us, we're all many different people, and no one is truly evil.' Then I'd say, 'OK, if you take that to its conclusion, then no one has to stand accountable for their actions.'"

Um... no, no, no. No. What "conclusion" does Behr thinks comes from this attitude? If you're not "absolutely evil" or "truly evil", you aren't accountable for your actions?! That doesn't make any sense to me.

Come to think of it, isn't it actually the opposite? If there was such a thing as evil by nature, then wouldn't it excuse a person - if you're evil by nature, you can't help doing evil things, can you? But I believe that there is no such thing. I happen to agree that we all have this inside of us, more or less. The question is, how it develops and what you do with it. A lot depends on upbringing, experiences, environment... but ultimately, it is most of all, a matter of the choices we make. We are all capable of doing good or evil - and it's our choices that make the difference.

But the capacity for both good and evil is there in everyone. And that's what is trully scary and disturbing. It's so much easier to think that evil is done by some inhuman monsters. But in fact, it can be one of our friends or relatives, it can be our nice next-door neighbour. I've heard my relatives, co-workers, kids at a school I used to teach in, people at the library I visit - all nice, sweet, normal people with families and friends and ordinary jobs - utter horrible, racist, atrocious statements that could have come out of the mouth of some war criminal. Whatever the reason - brainwashing by the media? ignorance? influence of the environment? - who says that they couldn't cross the line, in some other circumstances, and slaughter people? At the very least, they are able to support it. I remember when "Die Untergang" came out, and some people were really upset that, OMG, they are portraying Hitler as a human being! Well, of course they are. What else do you think he was?! OMG, they are showing that he was able to be nice and charming to the people who worked for him! Well, of course he was. Do you think anyone would have followed him otherwise? And if it hadn't been Hitler, it could have been someone else. It's never about one person. It could be your next-door neighbour or your sweet elderly aunt who is a perfectly nice, except that he/she really hates "those people". (And the same thing happened when Antonia Bird shot "Hamburg Cell" about the highjackers of 9/11. Again, lots of outraged reactions: OMG, we can't have a movie that attempts to understand the motivations of Al Quaeda suicidal terrorists, that is the same as jusfying what the ydid! We can't have people see them as anything but shapeless faceless monsters, or they might see them as sympathetic! Seriously, guys - grow up.)

But ultimately it is all about the choices we make. We may be lovely people in other regards, we may be charming and attractive, intelligent and artistic, we may be great friends and love our parents, spouses and children, we may be loyal and even idealistic. It doesn't excuse us in any way if we commit a crime or an evil deed. We are all responsible and accountable for all actions and our choices.

Exactly. If someone is nothing but pure evil, how can he possibly be held accountable for anything he does? By its very definition, pure evil would be completely incapable of doing good. You could execute this hypothetical purely evil soul for the protection of society, but you could never demand responsibility from someone incapable of even understanding the concept. It's why we deal differently with people who commit crimes under the influence of debilitating mental illness than those who are fully aware of their actions and capable of making a choice.

By insisting that Dukat is pure evil, the writers diminished the moral implications of every single thing he did. It is far, far worse for someone capable of great good to commit evil anyway. It's far worse to have someone using self-justification for things that really have very little justification at all. The very need for self-delusion of motive and reality shows that on some level, he was fully aware that what he did was wrong and bad. What was good in him couldn't reconcile itself with his actions.

I personally think a much more fitting and crushing end would have been Dukat having to witness everything horrible that happened to Cardassia as a direct result of his actions and having to stand alone and be held personally accountable. The Fire Cave ending is peanuts compared to the collective condemnation of his entire race and the rest of the Alpha Quadrant. Of course they couldn't have and shouldn't have put Dukat in the role of Damar, but to say their only other choice was the Pah-Wraith possession schtick is patently ridiculous. It's the easy road paved with good intentions, and it weakened the very point they were trying to drive home in the end.

 

[Triskelion]

This is a fascinating thread, so good on all the posters so far

I loved Waltz and I loved seeing Dukat go from living in half measures, to a transformation into the sociopath that was always there beneath the surface. I loved seeing him embrace his role in history, and his true contempt for Bajor to come out, finally, into the light. Because the truth is, anyone who rationalizes what Cardassia did to Bajor, has made a choice, and that choice is evil, no matter how you sugarcoat it, no matter how calm or reserved one's demeanor. It essentially objectifies "other". That is "evil". In demeaning others, self is demeaned. Life becomes base, humanity becomes rationalizing, and separation from the universe is the rule. Suffering is not far behind. Sin is its own punishment.

(Another quick point - Sisko calling Dukat "pure evil" - why do we assume our heroes are never wrong, or exaggerate, or can't remember correctly, or are judgmental, or just being taken too literally? Maybe he meant Dukat's choices were evil).

Now, the storyline depended heavily on religious contexts and drew from, shall I say it, Judeo-Christian reference points, as opposed to say, animism or zen buddhism or zoroastrianism, etc - with good and evil clearly delineated, worshippers behaving penitently, and religion intertwined with civic society - something we in the west may really take for granted, but that becomes more apparent visiting a country where those influences did not take the same root.

Dukat's "fall" into an archetype seemed inevitable. It is a TV show after all.

But Dukat proves a theory I always had, that the best villains were really the most complex and dynamic characters who made a choice that any one of us could have made, given the circumstances - that just happened to be the wrong choice, or made for the wrong reasons.

His character, indeed the role of Cardassia in this series, exemplifies what is possible to justify given an objectified victim race and a society that is unwilling to face themselves and their shortcomings. All too many people in this world willingly turn a blind eye to the exploitation and suffering of others - but in so doing, even in "enlightened multicultural laissez-faire passivity" - sell out their own humanity in the process.

With the first link a chain is forged....
Judge not lest ye be judged....
Ask not for whom the bell tolls....
“There are two ways to live: you can live as if nothing is a miracle; you can live as if everything is a miracle.” - Einstein

As for the alternate ending to Waltz - was Dukat to have been killed by Sisko after his sociopathic transformation?

Finally, I am all for gray areas; but regardless of real life, in creative writing - characters must change and grow; they make choices, and live with consequences, or it's a story not worth experiencing. Refusing to make a choice - or dwelling on the fence, as it were - is also a choice - and not always the right one. (That's why captains like Kirk and Janeway sometimes did the immoral thing, taking all the heat themselves, in order to protect their crews - even at the cost of their ships).

I'd love it if Ira Behr and Marc Alaimo, et al are somewhere reading this thread, seeing a discussion of Dukat evoking questions they must have wrangled with themselves, and can say with satisfaction, "mission accomplished".

 

[DevilEyes]

I personally think a much more fitting and crushing end would have been Dukat having to witness everything horrible that happened to Cardassia as a direct result of his actions and having to stand alone and be held personally accountable. The Fire Cave ending is peanuts compared to the collective condemnation of his entire race and the rest of the Alpha Quadrant. Of course they couldn't have and shouldn't have put Dukat in the role of Damar, but to say their only other choice was the Pah-Wraith possession schtick is patently ridiculous. It's the easy road paved with good intentions, and it weakened the very point they were trying to drive home in the end.

That really would have been a much more fitting outcome - and if TPTB wanted to have Dukat punished for his crimes, that would have been a much more fitting punishment: just imagine how crushing it would have been for someone as self-deluded and so in need to see himself as the hero, to finally have the moment of realization and see the terrible consequences of his actions; and for someone who so desperately needed to be adored, to feel hated and despised by Cardassian and the entire Alpha Quadrant.

(Another quick point - Sisko calling Dukat "pure evil" - why do we assume our heroes are never wrong, or exaggerate, or can't remember correctly, or are judgmental, or just being taken too literally? Maybe he meant Dukat's choices were evil).

I wish that were the case, but much I'd like to see it as 'just Sisko's opinion', it sure didn't look like the show was taking that approach and letting the viewers come to their own conclusions. Especially with the way things developed afterwards.

Dukat's "fall" into an archetype seemed inevitable. It is a TV show after all.

Not really. Shows like The Sopranos or The Shield show otherwise. Yes, I know, DS9 is Star Trek after all, you can't expect that kind of treatment from it. But it didn't have to go into the full black-and-white good and evil, hammer-it-home mode, either, especially not with the supernatural thrown in. I guess I was just expecting better from DS9, having been used to its more complex characterization and storytelling in the past.

I rewatched "The Maquis" yesterday (I am finishing a partial rewatch of TNG and starting a partial rewatch of DS9, but although I've only rewatched "Emissary", I watched "The Maquis" out of order becase I wanted to see it again between "Journey's End" and "Preemptive Strike"). I had forgotten what an excellent episode it was on all levels. Now that was a great way to use Dukat and his dynamic with Sisko.

 

[DevilEyes]

A fascinating old discussion about Dukat and Sisko that I stumbled onto:

http://community.livejournal.com/ds9agogo/55559.html

This is the kind of debate that Trek should be able to spark.

I love the way that they bring up the parallels between Sisko and Dukat, as well the issue of the show being unusually apologetic of a collaborator (Odo) and a terrorist (Kira) and positioning them firmly as heroes, albeit flawed ones with 'dark past' (or dark present - see: Odo during the Dominion occupation). I was also reminded of this during "The Maquis" when Odo at one point shows that authoritarian streak of his, noting that there was so much more 'order' during the Cardassian occupation - and getting no more than a comeback "Unless you were a Bajoran" from Kira. Imagine the anger she'd unleash if it had been anyone else, but since it's her old friend Odo, she pretty much lets it slide. Odo and Kira are two of my favourite characters in all Trek, characters I absolutely love - but for me, loving a character does not make me want to skirt around their dark side, quite the opposite. I adore Kira. I also know that she was a terrorist, and that she is only partially remorseful about her actions. And I wonder, if Behr thinks that it's so wrong to portray Dukat with any sympathy and equates this with excusing real-life dictators and war criminals, why is it OK to portay a terrorist as a fully sympathetic heroine? Does that mean excusing real-life terrorists?

Oh, and I'm glad I'm not the only person who keeps wondering: the Prophets are supposed to be good guys - why, exactly? They seem to be arseholes as much as the Pah-wraiths (see: the possession of Sarah vs the possession of Keiko, using human(oid) bodies for their own battles in "The Reckoning") and most of other the time they're just indifferent, except when The Sisko manages to get them to do him a favor.

 

[Anwar]

Same reason people think God is good, even after all the stuff God does in the Old Testament.

 

[PSGarak]

^^ That debate was a fascinating read and brought up a lot of good points. I always wondered that about the Prophets and the Pah-Wraiths, too. Frankly, I wouldn't trust either as far as I could throw them.