Like I said in the Noble Savage thread, Chakotay is perfectly recognizable to whites as an Indian because he's noble, he's spiritual and there's flute music every time he's on screen.
What killed the Chakotary character?
- Thread starter stj
- Start date
Like I said in the Noble Savage thread, Chakotay is perfectly recognizable to whites as an Indian because he's noble, he's spiritual and there's flute music every time he's on screen.
^ Oh, yes, I remember, and I more or less agree, but I was kind of looking at it the other way, too. Sure, no doubt they wanted an American Indian to make themselves feel good about their cultural diversity - and I do think Trek helped make TV take some real strides in this area, although Chakotay isn't a shining example of that - but I also wonder if it was a little bit the other way. That is, did they also say to themselves, "Gee, it would be nice to have a member of the crew who was overtly spiritual, but we can't have a Christian or a Buddhist or something because that would be just too...mundane. Too boring. I know! Let's have an Indian! They are spiritual! All of them! Right?"
I have just sometimes played with that idea in my head.
I have just sometimes played with that idea in my head.
In a way... that's worse...
It shows that the way Chakotay was written wasn't just lazy research and writing, but based on TPTB's own prejudices.
Yeah, that is worse. They didn't view us as people...
That little gadget Chakotay was using to induce visions meant that the character originally started as a genuine science fiction character, someone from the future who was, shockingly enough, different from someone today, from down the street, if not right there in the living room. The guess that futuristic Native Americans might go that route is defensible enough. Not being like a specific tribe means not blaming any real life people for a gadget that really could be perceived as the equivalent of psychedelic drugs. My belief is that the writers did end up getting pressured out of the original concept.
Except there wasn't much else to the character's spirituality. Cutting out the science fictiony parts left nothing behind, except default stereotypes. (Well, except the Maquis part, which was kind of dumb anyhow.) My take, anyhow.
And "Chakotary" proves I can't type or proffread.
Except there wasn't much else to the character's spirituality. Cutting out the science fictiony parts left nothing behind, except default stereotypes. (Well, except the Maquis part, which was kind of dumb anyhow.) My take, anyhow.
And "Chakotary" proves I can't type or proffread.
^^ Well...I don't know that very many characters are thought of as people at the start - they tend to consist of a list (a pretty short list) of characteristics and quirks, don't they? I've read a few concept scripts, and that's how it seems to me. They need to become people, if the show is going to be a good one, but I don't imagine they start out that way.
I mean, did anybody in the beginning know anything about Harry Kim besides his age, his ethnicity, his longing for his sweetheart and the fact that he played the clarinet? Or about Tom Paris other than that his dad was an admiral, he drank too much, he was supposed to be the ship's rebel, etc.? Or about Janeway other than the obvious facts about her?
An awful lot of TV is fitting characters in slots, or so it seems to me. The difference between good TV and bad TV is that good TV moves the characters out of their slots pretty quickly.
Edit: What "Chakotary" proves, STJ, is that everybody needs an editor!
Alas, we can't have one for everything.
I mean, did anybody in the beginning know anything about Harry Kim besides his age, his ethnicity, his longing for his sweetheart and the fact that he played the clarinet? Or about Tom Paris other than that his dad was an admiral, he drank too much, he was supposed to be the ship's rebel, etc.? Or about Janeway other than the obvious facts about her?
An awful lot of TV is fitting characters in slots, or so it seems to me. The difference between good TV and bad TV is that good TV moves the characters out of their slots pretty quickly.
Edit: What "Chakotary" proves, STJ, is that everybody needs an editor!
Alas, we can't have one for everything.
Agreed. Anwar made the point that the character wasn't really different enough to Janeway or to the rest of the Starfleet crew. There wasn't the contrast that Kira offered to Sisko (speaking as a non-fan of DS9 I must say that contrast worked pretty well for quite a while). The character was just...bland from the start and didn't get any better.
Agreed. I've seen more animated and interesting fence posts than Beltran. The non-Voyager efforts of his that I've seen didn't impress me, either. I'm aware others disagree with that assessment, which is fine; to each their own.
Agreed on all points. The character wasn't very well conceived, wasn't very well written, and was potrayed by an ordinary actor. Which leads to this point:
Agreed again. Barring Wang and Beltran, all the actors were able to rise above the sometimes awful material they had to work with. It seemed to me that their response was "I'm going to do my best work regardless", while Beltran's response was to all but phone in his performances (such as they were). Again, YMMV, but that's how it looked to me.
Actually I have seen a couple of non trek movies of his..for instance his Kiss Me a Killer movie and Latino movies. Those were really great and I thought he did an awesome job in both of them! And now, he seems to be doing really well doing plays. Or so I've read. They say that his sci-fi shows(meaning Voyager) didn't do him any justice!
I haven't seen his play but I've read that it's been getting really great ratings and Beltran's character is superb, which goes to show you that an actor CAN do better, once given better material. I don't get all the resentment that posters here have against him. It's so far fetched and there are other actors out there who are worse than Beltran when stating opinions about certain things.
^ Boy, I'll say. I've wondered about that myself. I won't say any names because what's the point? It's all opinion anyway. But I think if you had a non-biased knowledgeable source rate all the Trek actors, you'd find that there actors who would be rated far below Beltran (and I am not necessarily talking about Wang, either) whose acting is NEVER criticized by fans. I just don't get it.
I have seen him in some non-Trek things, and while I wouldn't call him brilliant, he's a perfectly capable actor. Or so it seems to me. And his stage performances are well reviewed. Maybe he's gotten a lot better since he left Voyager, but...maybe not. As I said earlier, we'll never know now.
I have seen him in some non-Trek things, and while I wouldn't call him brilliant, he's a perfectly capable actor. Or so it seems to me. And his stage performances are well reviewed. Maybe he's gotten a lot better since he left Voyager, but...maybe not. As I said earlier, we'll never know now.
I don't know anything about Beltran's play, but remember that actors can have wildly different ranges — some can handle any part put in front of them, others can only work with a few types of material. Some are great on stage but can't make the transition to TV.
Again, I don't know enough about Beltran to know whether any of that applies, but just a warning against thinking "he was good in play/show X, therefore he would have been good on Voyager if the writers had cooperated".
Again, I don't know enough about Beltran to know whether any of that applies, but just a warning against thinking "he was good in play/show X, therefore he would have been good on Voyager if the writers had cooperated".
^ But "I didn't like him so he must be bad" is OK? Kidding!
I am actually not suggesting he would have been great if the writers had cooperated. I'm suggesting that he would have been a lot better - but that's of course only my opinion.
But what I am saying is that Trek fans might be surprised - or even shocked - at the opinion those outside of Trek circles have of some favorite Trek actors. I've avoided saying this because I don't want to offend anybody and besides Jonathan Frakes always seems like such a nice guy, but I think he's a very poor actor, in Trek or outside it, and I don't think it would be hard to find knowledgeable critics who agree with me (I admit that I haven't tried, however). Nobody was more wooden and nobody had a smaller emotional range than Frakes' character on TNG, but he is nonetheless a very popular character. I love TNG. Just not Riker.
I am actually not suggesting he would have been great if the writers had cooperated. I'm suggesting that he would have been a lot better - but that's of course only my opinion.
But what I am saying is that Trek fans might be surprised - or even shocked - at the opinion those outside of Trek circles have of some favorite Trek actors. I've avoided saying this because I don't want to offend anybody and besides Jonathan Frakes always seems like such a nice guy, but I think he's a very poor actor, in Trek or outside it, and I don't think it would be hard to find knowledgeable critics who agree with me (I admit that I haven't tried, however). Nobody was more wooden and nobody had a smaller emotional range than Frakes' character on TNG, but he is nonetheless a very popular character. I love TNG. Just not Riker.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, no-one outside of the US gives a shit about American Indians.
They should've made him Jewish.
^ Oh, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that, Shazam. American Indians are very popular in some countries, or so I've been told. And I've seen it myself, too - when I went to Mesa Verde National Park a few years ago, the place was full of German tourists, and one of the rangers told me this isn't uncommon.
Edit: Of course these were ancient Indians...but I think you'd find that not all the tourists on the reservations or in the pueblos are from the U.S.
But Jewish would have been good...except that VOY writers did so badly portraying a made-up religion that I tremble at the thought of what they would have done with a real one.
Edit: Of course these were ancient Indians...but I think you'd find that not all the tourists on the reservations or in the pueblos are from the U.S.
But Jewish would have been good...except that VOY writers did so badly portraying a made-up religion that I tremble at the thought of what they would have done with a real one.
Last edited:
I think Canada, Mexico, and all of Central and South America would like a word with you, Mr. Wizard.
Re: OP, I'm in agreement with others who've said that grossly incompetent characterization and writing did Chakotay in. No sense of actual identity, little attempt to develop him or give him much to do aside from be Janeway's lapdog and resident pincushion on the rare occasions when TPTB gave him a spine.
I'd say Robert Beltran was a competent enough actor that, given good material, he could've done very well. Certainly there are moments throughout the series when glimpses of that shine through.
And offering Robert Picardo as an example of good acting elevating bad writing is poor form, since he was given the most consistently good material on the show. Roxann Dawson, I think, would be a better example.
Vulcan meditation being one, in Star Trek. The thing is, I'm pretty sure, that Chakotay teaching spirit animals to Janeway and Torres etc. was planned to be a major part of the character, until they got scared off. His doohickey was primarily for the nonspiritual types. Whether or not you like the sf version of a mechanical door to spirituality, it was at least something for Chakotay to actually do.
Clearly you haven't seen "Eating Raoul".
Describe what you mean by world please. Have you heard of Europe? It's a provincial place, hard to find on the map... but did you actually know that native americans have left a strong imprint in the collective unconsciousness of all europeans? For example, french historians believe they have found their socialist utopia with the Inca empire. East Germany made western films were the cowboys were bad and indians good (true, it's because "the american white racist capitalist imperialist" has to be by nature bad.. but consider it an act of balance). Communist lands were constantly "aware" of a lot of socialist movements in latin america... most of them indigenous by nature, so there was a lot of material around about indian history. At least more than enough to counter that opinion.
But I believe the biggest worshippers of indians are still germans. At least most of the historical fiction about indians or socialist indigenous revolutions of Mexico or whatever being published at that time have german authors.
Most european world-travellers are more interested in Bolivia or Ecuador than well... Argentina, US, Canada - you know, the white america.
True, that sort of world-traveller is probably hippie liberal socialist leftist folk music gay-loving drug-smoking type, so it does not embody everyone. But still.
While nationalism has gone it's way, I think romantic nationalism still exists pretty strongly in the minds of europeans. Romantic nationalism as every nation should be allowed to be it's own with it's own culture, language, music... and let us all rejoice in each other just like the way that old guy Herder meant it. At least there's disposition towards this sort of.. if not thinking then at least feeling. What I'm trying to say is that I know a lot of people who felt a certain sense of wrongs being righted when Evo Morales became a president in Bolivia. True, it does depend on with which circles one "hangs around with". And there are a lot of those whose sense of world ends with their own borders and they're proud of that. But your statement is still clearly wrong.
Yes one can find a lot of wrong in the european interest of amerindians. The romantication for example. But a lot of us romanticize ourselves the same way. Nature, spirits and stuff... you can find them in Europe too. Especially with the rising tides of neo-paganism... "our own gods and spirits of our fathers", as it states about itself.
Last edited:
The problem is that when you romanticize us, you're doing it through your own window. That's my biggest problem with Voyager--that it took Chakotay and presented a romanticized view of his culture, his religion as if it were real.
American indigenous traditions have a lot in common with the Neo-Pagans, but they're not identical.
Still, even a practicing witch would have done wonders for the writing of the character, since TPTB couldn't be bothered talking to Indians....
Preaching to the choir. I've been saying the same thing around here. Not in this thread... but in the forums. And well, the reaction seemed to imply that this view was already "discovered" and shared.
But europeans tend to present their own romanticized views of themselves also as real to themselves. We romanticize and say it's real. That's what we do. Some of the things we did in the 1930's certainly were wild. And 19th century.. oh boy... some of us had to fake our past. Brother Grimm's had to rewrite and recreate their fairy tales because the real fairy tales lacked that necessary "authentic germanic spirit". But thanks to them, those fairy tales now are "ancient and eternal embodiements" of germanic spirit. Just what we do. We don't really falsify indians more than we falsify ourselves.
Last edited:
