"Arrow" and "Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D."

Let's start with the fact that I am not the obvious target audience for comic book based TV shows.   I don't read comic books.  I've never read comic books.  Not because I have anything against comic books but because I just don't read them.

But I have watched superhero television.  And enjoyed it.  I haven't seen that many movies.  But between the few movies I've seen and the television, I can identify some of the major superheroes.

For instance, Superman.  I know Superman.  Of course I do.  Doesn't everyone?  I watched every episode of the old George Reeves television show in reruns during the 1960's when I was a child.  I think I watched it with my dad sometimes.  I can still recite:  "Look! Up in the sky!  It's a bird.  It's a plane ..."  You know the rest.  I also saw at least the first Christopher Reeve Superman movie.  I saw quite a few episodes of Lois and Clark in the 90's.  And I saw a few Smallville episodes, but probably not more than 10 or 15 over the entire run of the show. I know enough about Superman and Lois Lane and Jimmy Olson and Lex Luther that I don't feel left out of a Superman conversation.

I can also identify a fair number of characters in the Batman universe.   I watched every episode of that show multiple times when I was a child.  Yes, yes, I know.  The TV show was a camp version of Batman and that the comic books were "darker".  But from that TV show I know Batman and Robin (and Joker and Catwoman and Riddler, etc).  I don't know the whole back story though.  I saw the Tim Burton/Michael Keaton movie version that came out when I was in my 20's but I don't remember much of it.  I've never seen any of the Christopher Nolan versions.

I think I know Spiderman pretty much only from the Sunday funny pages.  But that gave me a pretty good knowledge of Peter Parker.  I never saw any of the Spiderman movies.  I must have watched a Spiderman cartoon on Saturday mornings too because I can hear  the Spiderman song in my head as I type this. 

I'm pretty sure I saw a few episodes of Wonder Woman, but I really don't remember them. 

Finally, I know the Incredible Hulk from the Bill Bixby TV series.  I don't know much because I was in college when it was on and didn't see much television.  But I have a general idea of what the Hulk is. 

So I have a history of superhero TV but not really a true understanding of superhero universes.  When I went to the movie theater to see The Avengers last year, I went only because it was a Joss Whedon movie and I like to support Joss.  Sitting in the theater with some friends, I turned to them right before the lights went down and asked if they had seen any of the other Marvel movies.  They hadn't.  "I hope we have a clue what's going on and who these people are," I said.

We did.  I figured out that Iron Man didn't have any powers and was just a rich guy with a suit.  I figured out that Captain America was (surprisingly, at least to me) from World War II and had been frozen (or something) and was now thawed (or something).  I knew enough Norse mythology that I could follow the Thor/Loki thing.  I loved the Hulk - but that's probably because I knew who he was.  I never really understood what Black Widow was or who that guy was who she was so upset was kidnapped by the bad guy.   But it didn't really matter.  It was light hearted fun.  I'd never want to see it again, but I enjoyed it enough that I didn't feel like it had been a waste of money.

So when ABC announced that there was to be a new TV show, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., to be produced by Joss Whedon,  I decided that I would watch it.  After all, I watch all things Joss.  And I've enjoyed superhero television in the past even though I haven't watched a full season of anything superhero related since I was 8 years old.  I also decided that I would give the show one full season because I knew that most of Joss's shows take a while to get started.

Let me be honest.  After watching a couple of months worth of episodes, I'm having a hard time imagining that I will actually watch this for the rest of the season.    

The main problem I'm having with the show is that there is not a single character that I care about.  Not only that, I find that I actively dislike Agent Ward and I truly find Sky and the two scientists annoying.  It's a bad sign when you find yourself wishing that all the characters will be killed off in a disastrous event.  I can tolerate Agents Coulson and May.  I'd be fine if they kept Coulson and May and started over with just the two of them.  But I'm ready to write off the other characters.

I also find that I don't care at all about the crisis of the week that they have to solve. The villains aren't that villainous and the crises are just too .... big.  We all know that the world isn't going to end every week. 

I have wondered if I my reaction would be different if I were a real Marvel comics book fan.  I mean, it's one thing to watch Lois and Clark as an adult (yeah, I know he's DC comics and not Marvel), but that was essentially a romantic comedy.  But this is supposed to be a true tie-in with the Marvel comic book/movie universe and I don't really understand that universe.

Maybe I'm just not able to tolerate comics book based TV anymore. 

Then, scrolling through Netflix to find something to watch, I happened upon Arrow in my Netflix to-be-watched list. I had put it on the list because I had heard that some actors I enjoyed on Doctor Who were appearing in it:  John Barrowman (Captain Jack Harkness), Colin Salmon (Doctor Moon, from Silence in the Libarary) and Alex Kingston (River Song).  I remembered hearing that it was based on a DC comics character called Green Arrow.  I knew nothing about Green Arrow.  Literally nothing.  I hadn't even heard of him until this TV series premiered.

So, on a cold, damp night when I had nothing better to do, I decided to watch a couple of episodes.  I settled in at 6:30 that night, intending to watch 2 or 3 episodes - about 2 1/2 hours of television (without commercials).   I would be finished by about 9:00 and then I intended to read a book.

At midnight I told myself that I had to stop watching TV and go to bed.  I've basically mainlined season 1 of Arrow on Netflix over the last  couple of weeks.  Then I went to the website of The CW and caught up on all the episodes of season 2 that have aired so far.  In fact, last Tuesday night I skipped Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. to watch episodes of Arrow so that I could watch Arrow in real time on Wednesday night.

It is really a fun show.  Not a perfect show.  You certainly have to suspend disbelief, but that's ok.  There are some issues with some of the women characters.  But aren't there always?  On the whole it is really a fun show that keeps my attention with characters that I care about.

If, like me, you know nothing about Green Arrow, here's how The CW describes the premise of the series:

After a violent shipwreck, billionaire playboy Oliver Queen was missing and presumed dead for five years before being discovered alive on a remote island in the Pacific. When he returns home to Starling City, his devoted mother Moira, much-beloved sister Thea, and best friend Tommy welcome him home, but they sense Oliver has been changed by his ordeal on the island. While Oliver hides the truth about the man he's become, he desperately wants to make amends for the actions he took as the boy he was. Most particularly, he seeks reconciliation with his former girlfriend, Laurel Lance. As Oliver reconnects with those closest to him, he secretly creates the persona of Arrow - a vigilante – to right the wrongs of his family, fight the ills of society, and restore Starling City to its former glory. By day, Oliver plays the role of a wealthy, carefree and careless philanderer he used to be - flanked by his devoted chauffeur/bodyguard, John Diggle - while carefully concealing the secret identity he turns to under cover of darkness. However, Laurel's father, Detective Quentin Lance, is determined to arrest the vigilante operating in his city. Meanwhile, Oliver's own mother, Moira, knows much more about the deadly shipwreck than she has let on – and is more ruthless than he could ever imagine.

 That description really doesn't give any spoilers, most of that is revealed in the pilot. 

Why is this show different from S.H.I.E.L.D.?   (For one thing it doesn't have periods to type, which is a relief).  It has a compelling lead character that I bought into from the first episode.  I wanted to know what happened to Oliver on the island to turn him into the man he is.  Clearly there is more than he is letting on.  The flashbacks show him how he was and we see him now how he is.  His body is covered in scars.  He is a deadshot archer, where he had no such skill before.  He now has amazing physical fighting skills.  He also now speaks Chinese.  And Russian.  And he is ripped.  No, I mean seriously  ripped.  I'm not really into guys with big muscles but Stephen Amell, who plays the Arrow character ... whoa, baby.  

The other thing about him is that he is maybe a little bit of a psychopath.  Or at least has tendencies.  He is a killer.  He can lie like anything.  And yet, he is also a nice guy and as a viewer I really want him to become a hero and not a psychopath. It is not, however, clear at the beginning of the show how he will get to the point where he can be a hero.

The villains are also much, MUCH better than on S.H.I.E.L.D.  I've already outlined my entire knowledge of the comic book universe and clearly I don't know much.  I'm pretty sure Superman isn't going to show up in Starling City, or Batman.  But apparently the show has a lot of latitude to bring in DC Comics characters and do what they want with them.  (Similar to the latitude that Once Upon a Time has with Disney fairy tale characters.)  Most of the time I can't tell if the villain is a DC Comics character or someone made up for the show, but it doesn't matter.  They are very villainous.  And they have defined personalities (maybe being in costume helps).  S.H.I.E.L.D. villains always seem ... bland.

The people who the Arrow producers have found to play all these weekly villains are often actors I know from other series.  Ben Browder (Crighton from Farscape), James Callis (Dr. Baltar from Battlestar Galactica), J. August Richards (Gunn from Angel), Seth Gabel (Lincoln from Fringe).  Just to name a few.  And that was who they got in Season 1.  It was exciting to see them show up.  They really ought to think about finding a character for Tatiana Maslany that can recur on this show - she'd be great as a supervillain (or other superhero who shows up from time to time).

On S.H.I.E.L.D. the guest stars haven't been bad, but the characters they play don't seem fully developed.

Arrow has a multi-layered story and the writers aren't leading us along slowly.  We have been immersed in the island story from the first episode.  At first I was doubtful about how they could maintain the flashbacks to the island without it becoming a combination of Lost and Survivor.  But I soon found that part of the story as engrossing as, and sometimes more engrossing than, the present-day story.  On S.H.I.E.L.D. there is clearly supposed to be a back story to Coulson's death and resurrection.  But they just refuse to go there.  At this point I pretty much don't care. 

The stakes always seem higher on Arrow  than they do on S.H.I.E.L.D.  I'm pretty sure the writers of S.H.I.E.L.D. aren't going to kill off any of the cast members this early in the series (not even Joss does that) and I'm pretty sure that the Earth isn't going to be blown up, etc.  So there is never any real tension in the episodes.  On Arrow the threat is never to the world, it is always to something in Starling City or to people that Oliver cares about.  So the stakes are lower but that means that there are stakes.  Maybe if S.H.I.E.L.D. were in a smaller universe the plots would mean more.  Maybe having them on the plane is the real problem.  If you have a big plane you have to travel.  Maybe the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.  need to stay in one place.

In Arrow, Oliver has a version of the scooby gang that I've grown to know and love.  I won't give too much away but over the course of season 1, Oliver ends up with a few people who learn his identity and begin helping him while also trying to keep him on the straight and narrow.  Each of those characters is a likeable and interesting character in their own right.  They don't seem to be types.  On S.H.I.E.L.D., Agent Coulson's entire group all seem like types and not real people.

Finally, Arrow has a Big Bad.  The Big Bad  isn't a supernatural Big Bad, like in Buffy the Vampire Slayer days.  But the Big Bad exists and you have someone to root against. This gives the overall season a story arc that's very good.   S.H.I.E.L.D. has yet to introduce a Big Bad.  There is not yet any story arc, although there are hints of one with the mystery of Coulson's death and resurrection and now the mystery of Skye's parents (but really, I don't care about her parents because I don't care about her).

Mostly, the character of Oliver Queen is interesting.  He has had mysterious things happen to him.  He has demons.  He is a good person who is also a killer.  He is complex.  There is no one like him on S.H.I.E.L.D..

As I said, Arrow isn't perfect.   Sometimes I get tired of the fight sequences.   Everything looks a little too much like the Pacific Northwest (as most Vancouver shows do).  And some of the women characters are annoying - especially the character of Laurel, the girlfriend Oliver cheated on before he disappeared.  I admit that I regularly hope that Laurel will get killed off.  Oliver's sister Thea was also somewhat annoying at the beginning of the show, although she does get better as the show goes on and the writers finally figured out what to do with her.

But these are fairly minor complaints.  Is this great television?  No.  I'm sure it's no Breaking Bad.  It's no Orange is the Next Black.  But it's entertaining television.  Hope they can continue to make it so.

Here's a taste of why I say "whoa, baby":

250 Years Ago* ... Laclede Attempts to Buy Property in Kaskaskia

On November 6, 1763, Pierre Laclede, a visitor in the village of Nouvelle Chartres, attended a local auction. The Jesuit Mission in the Illinois was packing up and leaving as part of the suppression of the order in the France and its domains. On July 9, 1763, an order had issued from the Governor of Louisiana expelling them from Louisiana.


According to witnessess**:

"Except for some books and some wearing apparel which was allowed to them, all their property, real and personal, was to be seized and sold at auction."   The chapel ornaments at the mission in the Illinois were to be delivered to the King's procurator and the chapels were to be demolished.  The Jesuits were from that moment prohibited from living in the same house and were to take ship to France at the earliest time.

The Jesuits in Illinois had extensive property.   On the day of the auction, the property being auctioned consisted of a house that must have been quite large as it was "divided into different rooms" and had a garret and a cellar.  There were also outbuildings, including slave quarters, a weaving room, a barn, a horse mill, a dovecote, and a stable.

Laclede had no intention of establishing a permanent post at Kaskaskia, but he needed somewhere to live and to establish himself with the residents.  

Bidding seems to have been brisk.  The opening bid was 8,000 livres from Jean Baptiste Bauvais.   Raphael Bauvais immediately jumped the bid to 20,000 livres and from there it went up steadily.   Mr. de Rocheblave (who would later be acting commander of the fort) bid 25,000.  At that point Laclede jumped in and bid 30,000 livres.  But he was soon outbid as the price jumped to 32,000 and then 35,000.  Laclede re-entered the bidding at 39,000 livres but Jean Baptiste Bauvais was the winner at 41,000 livres.

Laclede was probably not concerned to lose the auction.  Many people were leaving the Illinois, including soldiers garrisoned at the fort.  There would be other properties for sale. 



*Part of my continuing blog series leading up to the 250th anniversary of the founding of St. Louis in February 2014.

**For this and the details of the auction, see The Critical Period, 1763-1765, Volume 10 by Clarence Walworth Alvord.

250 Years Ago* ... November 3, 1763, Laclede Arrives in Ste. Genevieve

On November 3, 1763 Pierre Laclede and young Auguste Chouteau arrived at the village of Ste. Genevieve, on the west bank of the Mississippi River in what is now Missouri.  They had been on the river since the beginning of August, traveling slowly upstream from New Orleans with the royal convoy bound with supplies for Fort de Chartres.

Ste. Genevieve was the most northern French settlement on the west bank of the Mississippi, or at least the most northern settlement downriver from the confluence with the Missouri River.  Although the town of Ste. Genevieve still remains, the original settlement was a victim of Mississippi River flooding. By the 1790's, the residents had moved the entire town back from the river to where it exists today.

According to Gregory M. Franzwa, in his Ste. Genevieve: An Account of an Old French Town in Upper Louisiana; its People and their Homes, Ste. Genevieve was located where it was because of its easy access to the river (there were higher cliffs along the river north of Ste. Genevieve) and the route to the lead mines located northwest of the village.

In the early 1700's, the Royal Company of the Indies appointed a man named Philippe Francois Renault to explore and exploit the mineral resources of Louisiana.  The Company of course hoped he would locate gold and silver mines to rival those in Mexico.  Renault found no gold and silver, but he did find some of the best lead mines on the continent. As part of his arrangement with the company, Renault was granted a concession of land just north of Fort de Chartres and there he founded what became known as the village of St. Philippe.  According to Franzwa, Renault opened Mine La Motte on the Missouri side of the river and by 1725 was producing 1,500 pounds of lead per day.

Renault may be indirectly responsible for the founding of Ste. Genevieve on the west bank.  Sometimes the date given for the founding of Ste. Genevieve is the early 1730's but other times the official founding date is given as occurring after 1750.  Some historians, however, believe that there were people living on the site of the original village soon after Renault arrived, for the simple reason that workers would not want to cross the wide Mississippi every night to go home. But whether these, probably, itinerant workers constituted a village is open for debate.  Without a doubt, Ste. Genevieve was permanent French settlement by the 1750's.

Carl J. Ekburg, in French Roots in the Illinois Country, states that Ste. Genevieve, as a permanent agricultural community, first appears on the 1752 census of the Illinois Country (the French did not do a census every year or even every 10 years and they were not always accurate).   This census reflected eight permanent households with a total population of 23 (free and slave).

Presumably the early itinerant mine workers were superceded by permanent French Canadian families.  Ekburg, in his Francois Valle and his World, says:

Most of the residents of the Old Town [Ste. Genevieve] were a closely knit group of French Canadian habitants, or children of such habitants, who migrated from the east to the west bank of the Mississippi in pursuit of agricultural land. Multiple ties of blood, friendship and shared experiences bound these colonists together. 

By the time Laclede landed in 1763 the population would have grown. In fact, the 1760's saw an influx of French settlers relocating from what was now British Illinois to what they thought was French Illinois.  In 1765 a British captain reported Ste. Genevieve contained 50 families. By 1770 the British were reporting that Ste. Genevieve had 170 families.  French families clearly were not comfortable staying in British dominated lands, but in 1763 the only option for French families who did not want to live under Protestant British rule was to move across the river to Ste. Genevieve or head downriver to Arkansas Post or New Orleans.

In any event,  when Pierre Laclede stepped ashore in 1763, Ste. Genevieve was an established community.  Ekburg speculates that the original Ste. Genevieve was a "string town", a village laid out along one street, La Grand Rue, that would have run north/south more or less parallel with the river.  At the southern end of the village was La Petite Riviere, a stream that ran into the Mississippi.  It was here that the ferry across to Kaskaskia was located.  Secondary streets would have crossed La Grand Rue and homes, situated on lots of one square arpent, were laid out along La Grand Rue and the secondary streets.

Ekburg claims that the original town was a planned community, although no plan exists to tell us what it looks like.  Land grants made by the commandant at Fort de Chartres were not haphazard but were in accordance with a plan made by the royal surveyor, Francois Saucier. Saucier had arrived in the Illinois Country to design the new (and last) stone fort for Fort de Chartres.

Outside the village was a 7,000 acre agricultural area known as La Grand Champ, which was divided into strips of land that were owned by the villagers.   The whole area was enclosed by a large fence to keep animals out of the field.   After the harvest, the gates would be opened so that livestock could graze. As was typical throughout French North America, the French lived in their villages and traveled out to work their fields.

Although Ste. Genevieve was in French Illinois, it was directly across the river from the towns that would now be under the rule of the new British masters. This could not have been a comfortable feeling.  The French thought of the Mississippi River exactly as  we think of it today - a river located in one unified country, to be freely traversed without harassment from either bank other than from, sometimes, Indians.   As soon as the British arrived on the east bank, the river would turn into an international boundary.

The first thing that Laclede would have noticed about Ste. Genevieve when he arrived was that it was not a military establishment.  The same week that Laclede arrived in Ste. Genevieve, the French governor of Louisiana wrote to his predecessor that he intended to order the commandant at Fort de Chartres to carry off everything from the Fort when it was handed over to the British and deposit the artillery either in New Orleans or at the French post in Arkansas because "in Ste. Genevieve the  English would carry them off on their own perogative."

Governor D'Abbadie also remarked, in that November 6, 1763, letter that "the English officer assigned to command at the Illinois appears to me to be an alarming and seemingly completely dogmatic man" and D'Abbadie suggested that it would be best to warn the French commander in Fort de Chartres of this fact in advance.  Certainly this would not have made the French in the Illinois Country feel any better about the coming transfer of power.

Laclede had arrived in the Illinois Country, but his stay in Ste. Genevieve would be short lived.  Ste. Genevieve was not fortified and there was no secure location to store all of his trade goods.  Fortunately Commander de Noyes at Fort de Chartres (the brother-in-law of ex governor Kerlerec) was on the lookout for Laclede and Chouteau.  According to Auguste Chouteau's later memoir, Commander de Noyes sent a soldier over to Ste. Genevieve to tell Laclede that he was willing to assist Laclede and store his goods in the fort.  Since Fort de Chartres was another 18 miles upriver from Ste. Genevieve it is possible that Laclede and his party spent the night in Ste. Genevieve, but that is just speculation.

According to J. Frederick Fausz in his Founding of St. Louis,former Governor Kerlerec had sent an overland messenger to his brother-in-law, Commander de Noyes,  that had arrived at the Fort on October 25, 1763.  So de Noyes undoubtedly knew that Laclede, the partner of the richest merchant in New Orleans, was on his way.  According to Fausz, Governor D'Abbadie had "loaned" Laclede 300 pounds of the King's gunpowder.  The safest place to store gunpowder would be in the magazine at Fort de Chartres. (Clink this link for a view of the restored magazine building at Fort de Chartres, thought to be the oldest building in Illinois.)  Fausz sees this as evidence that Maxent & Laclede had the backing of the French colonial government in their endeavor to establish a trading post at the Missouri/Mississippi confluence.

Fausz thinks it is clear that the French colonial powers realized that there was going to be an exodus from the eastern bank of the river.  The day before Laclede arrived in Ste. Genevieve, de Noyes had treated with a group of Indians who were requesting French assistance against the British, including a request for gunpowder.  De Noyes had to deny the request because, as far as the French were concerned, the war was over.  He urged the Indians to cease waging war on the British and "retreat under French wings to the other side of the Mississippi River."  The following year, many French would "retreat" to the west side of the Mississippi to the new trading settlement that Laclede would found near the confluence of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.

Although Laclede's visit to Ste. Genevieve was short, it was important.  It marked his official arrival in the Illinois Country.   By the 1780's the people of Ste. Genevieve were beginning to move to higher ground where the flooding of the Mississippi River could not reach them.  Today Ste. Genevieve remains one of the oldest existing communities west of the Mississippi River and it has the largest concentration of French Colonial Buildings in the country.  In 2008 it was selected by the National Trust for Historic Preservation as one its "Dozen Distinctive Destinations" and some of the old homes are open to the public including The Bolduc House.  Although built in the 1790's, it gives some idea of the type of homes that Pierre Laclede would have encountered in Ste. Genevieve and in the Village of Nouvelle Chartres during his stay there. If you are ever in the area, I strongly encourage a visit.

In 2008 Sainte Genevieve was selected as one of the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s “Dozen Distinctive Destinations.” - See more at: http://www.greatriverroad.com/SteGenHome.htm#sthash.V6wqJmne.dpuf

Ste. Genevieve holds the distinction of the having the largest concentration of French Colonial buildings in the country. In 2008 Sainte Genevieve was selected as one of the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s “Dozen Distinctive Destinations.” Each year the National Trust for Historic Preservation selects 12 cities that offer an authentic visitor experience by combining dynamic downtowns, attractive architecture, cultural landscapes and a commitment to historic revitalization. Sainte Genevieve’s strength was its preservation, with more than 150 pre-1825 structures. Three of these buildings - the Amoureux, the Bolduc, and the Guibourd-Valle houses - are open to the public. The Felix Valle Home is open to the public and demonstrates the effect of the American influence. - See more at: http://www.greatriverroad.com/SteGenHome.htm#sthash.V6wqJmne.dpuf

Ste. Genevieve holds the distinction of the having the largest concentration of French Colonial buildings in the country. In 2008 Sainte Genevieve was selected as one of the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s “Dozen Distinctive Destinations.” Each year the National Trust for Historic Preservation selects 12 cities that offer an authentic visitor experience by combining dynamic downtowns, attractive architecture, cultural landscapes and a commitment to historic revitalization. Sainte Genevieve’s strength was its preservation, with more than 150 pre-1825 structures. Three of these buildings - the Amoureux, the Bolduc, and the Guibourd-Valle houses - are open to the public. The Felix Valle Home is open to the public and demonstrates the effect of the American influence. - See more at: http://www.greatriverroad.com/SteGenHome.htm#sthash.V6wqJmne.dpuf

*Part of my continuing blog series leading up to the 250^th anniversary of the founding of St. Louis in February 2014.