Babylon 5, "Comes the Inquisitor", S02E21, OAD 10/25/95 *spoilers*

[gchance]

Guide page: http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/countr...guide/043.html

"Who are you?"

- G'Kar's trying desperately to rally the Narns, and meanwhile we see an ominous view of Vir
- The Vorlons have sent a human inquisitor to evaluate Delenn to evaluate whether she's right for the work ahead
- G'Kar has taken to smuggling weapons to an underground Narn resistance that he is forming
- The question of the day: "Who are you?" This is similar to the question Morden asked, which was, "What do you want?"
- What an unconfortable encounter in the turbolift, uh... elevator, for Vir! Dead, dead, dead, indeed. Great, now G'Kar needs a band aid.
- So Sheridan comes to Delenn's aid, but THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS!
- G'Kar now has the trust of his fellow Narn. My question is, why didn't they trust him before? He's been shown many times in the past to be the man.

While the inquisitor (or Sebastian, I guess) was a bit sadistic in his methods, and certainly portrayed as "bad", he WAS correct. From day 1, Delenn's had this attitude about her that she's better than everyone else, that Delenn is right, everyone else is wrong, so get over it. She needed to be knocked down a few pegs.

Back in the day it bothered me that yet another Sci-Fi show had Jack the Ripper in it. It doesn't bother me near as much now. I'm not sure why.

Finally, it's annoying that we're not ending S2 on a Friday. That's just how it goes, I guess. At least we don't have to wait three months for it!

Greg

[Sirius Black]

This was one of my favorite episodes up to that point when I originally saw it. I thought it was very creative to bring in this guy (Sebastian) and claim that he had been rehabilitated but still be quite sadistic in his methods.

I disagree that Sebastian was portrayed as "bad". He had a job to do and Kosh has shown previously that he will do what is necessary to get to the heart of the truth. That was, I think Sebastian's mission. Sebastian had no dog in the hunt. He didn't care one way or the other what happened. That isn't bad necessarily.

The guy who played Sebastian is a recurring actor on the show. I know he has shown up at least once prior to this episode.

Spoiler:

This is the first and only time he plays a human.

How many times had Jack the Ripper shown up in Sci-Fi before 1995? Other than Time After Time.

[aintnosin]

Originally Posted by Sirius Black

How many times had Jack the Ripper shown up in Sci-Fi before 1995? Other than Time After Time.

Well, TOS Star Trek's "Wolf in the Fold," for one.

[Craigbob]

JMS has an interesting theory as to who the real Jack was. based on the research he did, he came up with a Reverend Samuel Bennett as the culprit.

Joe sure does like these 1 on 1 type confrontational type dramas don't he?

[Mars Rocket]

Wow, I thought this was an awesome episode - the first I've been truly captivated by so far.

Andreas Katsulas is amazing, but the Narn sub-plot was a little off overall. I like the story line of the plot itself, but it seemed to lack detail and depth. Also, I was expecting him to go to Vir to get the message through - that seems like an obvious choice, and one that could lead to future drama and conflict.

But: Is it really *that* hard to find somebody who would anonymously sacrifice themselves for another? It took Sebastien and the Vorlons 400 years to find one? And who is Delenn, anyway? I don't recall ever hearing the true answer to that question...

I also didn't like the Jack the Ripper angle at the end. It was a little too "gimicky" to be great. Still, it was well played out and not as bad as it could have been.

[busyba]

Originally Posted by Mars Rocket

But: Is it really *that* hard to find somebody who would anonymously sacrifice themselves for another? It took Sebastien and the Vorlons 400 years to find one?

It's more than just that I think, it's a combination of that and a believer/follower of the Vorlon cause. There are plenty of either, but very few of both, I suppose.

Here's JMS on that: "Sacrificing oneself happens frequently...but for just one other person, AND in a situation where no one else would ever know about it. Bear in mind that he wasn't testing people randomly; only those who felt that they were chosen of god, fulfillers of prophecy...people who assumed that they were part of some grand scheme, and thus to whom an anonymous death is an intolerable thought.

Also, most probably never *got* that far, unable to stand the real pain of being placed in this position. Everybody can talk the talk; very few can walk the walk. Most probably just yanked off the bracelets and split, on the theory that they weren't being sufficiently coddled or glorified...or because being a potential prophet isn't as much fun as they'd thought. "

And who is Delenn, anyway? I don't recall ever hearing the true answer to that question...

JMS on that: "Of course, bear in mind that there *is* no correct answer to Sebastian's question...because no matter what answer you give, the question will be repeated. It's a process, not a goal, designed to tear down the artifices we construct around ourselves until we're left facing ourselves, not our roles. At some point the "answer," such as it is, must transcend language. "

I also didn't like the Jack the Ripper angle at the end. It was a little too "gimicky" to be great. Still, it was well played out and not as bad as it could have been.

JMS on that: "Why bring up Sebastian's past? Because it's integral to who he is now, and what he's doing, and why he's doing it. Also, there's something very important here about greying up the Vorlons a little; of all the people they could've chosen for this job, why THIS kind of person? It makes them a trifle more morally ambiguous, which is necessary."

More JMS on that: "I looked at who this historical figure could be, but no one else fit into the area I wanted. It was a decision born of necessity, not whim. I needed someone far enough removed not to have any current victims' families still alive; someone known to a worldwide population (anonymous wouldn't have worked because why would Sheridan have known about him, why should we care, why should it resonate, and we'd spend time explaining what he did that would have meant cutting out other material in the episode); the other serial killers tend to have clear fates, whereas Jack vanished and is thus "available" to us; visually that period makes for a striking contrast to 2259.

And, again, you have to look at who he *was*...a fanatic, trying to clean up Spittlefields (good cause) by hatred (wrong reason) and murder (wrong means), the EXACT thing Delenn warns against at the very start of the show. (Did you know there's a letter in the London Times for that period that tries to explain the Ripper's motives as a cry for understanding about conditions in that part of London?) He felt he was a divine messenger, learned he was not, and in bitterness has become the single best inquisitor you could've had in that job.

Every single thing about Jack made him *perfect* for that role, as mirror, menace and warning sign. So I used him. And I'd do it again. You have to find what works best for the story, and do it."



The moral ambiguity with the Vorlons is pretty important. That's all I'll say about that.

[secondclaw]

Originally Posted by Sirius Black

The guy who played Sebastian is a recurring actor on the show. I know he has shown up at least once prior to this episode.

I thought this was the finest role the actor played on B5 - one of my favorite episodes because of that.

[gchance]

Originally Posted by secondclaw

I thought this was the finest role the actor played on B5 - one of my favorite episodes because of that.

So far, anyway. Without spoiling anything, he'll be in quite a few episodes in the future. One thing interesting about Babylon 5 is a lot of the best actors in the series are hidden by makeup! And unfortunately awards aren't typically given to actors in makeup. Except John Hurt, I suppose.

Greg

[Hunter Green]

Originally Posted by gchance

- G'Kar's trying desperately to rally the Narns, and meanwhile we see an ominous view of Vir

I always wanted to be at a sci-fi con and get caught in an elevator with JMS, because judging from how many scenes on B5 happen that way, ever since the very beginning (and with the stakes of the elevator scenes steadily rising), he must have had some interesting experiences in elevators.

Originally Posted by Mars Rocket

I also didn't like the Jack the Ripper angle at the end. It was a little too "gimicky" to be great. Still, it was well played out and not as bad as it could have been.

JMS's reasons for using Jack all make sense, and it absolutely works that Jack would be the right person for this job, and that using him for it establishes some things about the Vorlons. At the same time, though, the way the revelation is played out, it comes off gimmicky. What JMS isn't addressing is that the gimmickiness comes not from using Jack, but from making the revelation that it's Jack a big "payoff" at the end.

I always took this as a concession to the fact that a TV show has to appeal to more than just me. I would have been just as wowed, without that sense of gimmickiness, to learn who he was at the beginning, and get on with the story. But probably lots of other people wanted the gimmick. (I always wonder how many of those people ended up watching B5 this far, though. By this point, the show has probably weeded out most of those people. Easy for me to say, though, I don't have to go into meetings with network producers!)

[Mars Rocket]

Originally Posted by Hunter Green

JMS's reasons for using Jack all make sense, and it absolutely works that Jack would be the right person for this job, and that using him for it establishes some things about the Vorlons.

I'm not sure I agree with this. We don't find out he's Jack until the very end, but the character still works throughout the episode. Finding out who he is at the very end doesn't change anything about the character, it just adds a little "Oh..." to the episode. Not necessary = gimmick to me. This is yet another example where it seems that JMS is coming up with excuses to explain things that people are criticizing, rather than admitting it was a bad idea.

As for the Vorlons, there has been speculation here that this gives evidence of their moral ambiguity, but really I see it as them finding somebody bad and removing him from the human population and giving him a chance to do penance and redeem himself over a long period. That's good behavior on two counts and not ambiguous to me at all.

[BitbyBlit]

Originally Posted by Mars Rocket

Finding out who he is at the very end doesn't change anything about the character, it just adds a little "Oh..." to the episode.

It might not have changed anything about the character, but it did add a lot more depth. While Sebastian did vaguely talk about his past, finding out who he was filled in a lot of backstory without having to actually go into it within the show.

When I first watched this episode, the essence of who Sebastian was didn't really hit me until the very end. At first I thought of him as just the opposite, someone special that the Vorlons had chosen because he had an understanding beyond that of other humans. Towards the end, when he talked about the Vorlons giving him a chance to redeem himself, that changed to seeing him as some abstract character that was trying to make up for his sins.

But when he said the word "Jack" (and I admit that none of what Sheridan was talking about clicked until Sebastian said that), I suddenly saw him in an entirely different light. He was no longer some random fictional character, but a character with a clear backstory. The impact of who he was and why the Vorlons had chosen him was greatly amplified.

To me, the purpose of the end was not so much to reveal that the character was Jack the Ripper, but that Jack the Ripper was the character. In other words, I don't think JMS was trying to get people to say, "Wow! That was Jack the Ripper!", but rather "Wow! So that's who Sebastian was!"

Using a completely fictional character would have required going into extra backstory in order to gain the same understanding of the character that was given with only one word. And even then, I'm not sure the impact would have been the same.

Originally Posted by Mars Rocket

As for the Vorlons, there has been speculation here that this gives evidence of their moral ambiguity, but really I see it as them finding somebody bad and removing him from the human population and giving him a chance to do penance and redeem himself over a long period. That's good behavior on two counts and not ambiguous to me at all.

The fact that they are giving Sebastian another chance and are finding out who the right people are is the "good" side. The other side is their method of "Inquisition". What the Vorlons consider a test, others might consider torture. I think that's where the ambiguity comes in.

Sebastian did say that others had died during the process. Of course, he could have been simply trying to scare Delenn, but then again maybe not. The Vorlons picked him not just because he needed redemption, but also because they knew how far he was willing to go in the name of righteousness.

[JYoung]

Originally Posted by gchance

While the inquisitor (or Sebastian, I guess) was a bit sadistic in his methods, and certainly portrayed as "bad", he WAS correct. From day 1, Delenn's had this attitude about her that she's better than everyone else, that Delenn is right, everyone else is wrong, so get over it. She needed to be knocked down a few pegs.

True but also remember that Delenn hasn't been as confident of late.
She's been attacked by humans, physically and verbally.
She's been insulted, demoted, and shunned by her own people.
And she got to watch all those Markab die to boot.
She was having doubts and Sebastian was shocked to find this out.
In that respect, it was necessary for Delenn to confront those doubts.