Conflict

Conflict is a delight for a Straker-lover like me. We
get to see Straker in a number of different modes in
this episode.

It starts with the obvious conflict between Henderson
and Straker over a space-junk clearance program. The
first little Henderson-Straker snippet ends with an
expression that bode ill with my Dad, the lips
compressed to a thin line. Look out! It’s an
expression that reappears later. The story jumps to
Alec Freeman saying that Straker wants the clearance
program because he’s afraid the aliens will use the
space junk to penetrate security. Then,
interestingly, Straker tells Henderson it’s for
safety’s sake, making it look like his reason is that
of a concerned commander. Multiple reasons for the
clearance or misdirection for Henderson’s benefit?
And Henderson essentially throws Straker out of his
office.

The next Straker mode is the over-bearing,
unreasonably demanding commander. In his frustration
Straker chews out Freeman about the clearance report.
We see a bit of subtle disobedience from old Alec.
“I’ve only just got here,” but he’s had time to play
chess with Maddox. And then Alec doesn’t come right
back with the report as ordered. I have to chuckle at
Paul’s comment that Straker is not going to think
everything is fine, he’s expecting Alec. But it’s a
good thing he didn’t come right back as ordered, or
he’d have been toast.

I’m surprised that after Henderson orders a shut-down
of lunar flights that Straker is so subdued when he
returns to HQ. His comments to Miss Ealand are very
quiet. It’s such a contrast from his usually bustle
I’d almost think he’d given up when he is sitting in
his office right afterward. At least he didn’t take
his aggravation out on the hard-working Miss Ealand.

Paul Foster shows just how hot-headed and reckless he
is by disobeying direct orders from both Straker and
Freeman. The guy is a loose cannon. I do think a
little later he figures out how much trouble he causes
for Straker. I think if I were Paul I’d be more
worried by the reasonable “we have a few things to
discuss” than if Straker had yelled over the radio.

Am I the only one who gets the impression that when
Straker and Foster visit Henderson right after Paul’s
forbidden flight that Straker is letting Foster do his
yelling for him? And I’m always impressed with the
way the scene plays out with Straker sitting Foster
down with a glace and then mollifying Henderson with
the quiet apology.

And then we come to one of those things that
transformed, in part, my opinion of Straker as a
character. For the most part before we’d seen Straker
as cold, hard, obnoxious, and demanding with just a
couple of hints of something underneath. For me, the
turning point comes as Straker tells Foster that he’s
solved a number of problems by just “sitting around”.
Then we see Straker lying on a couch or bed just
thinking. It ties to his previous preoccupation on
his return to the office. I have a thing for
characters who think more than they do.

And Straker comes up with a shocker of a solution to
his problem. It illustrates Straker’s brilliance and
his ability to manipulate people and events. Not only
does his plan convince Henderson he was right about
clearing the space junk but it allows him to really
stick it to Henderson. You can tell by the expression
on Straker’s face that he really gets a kick out of
that. The film director in Straker’s office only
makes it better with the line about loving Straker’s
policy of non-interference. LOL. Straker even offers
to explain himself but Henderson is in too much of a
high dudgeon to listen.

I think the events in “Conflict” are a real eye-opener
for Paul Foster. It tests his faith in his commanding
officer, first of all. He doesn’t understand what
Straker is doing when he orders the shutdown of the
electronics at HQ. It’s an interesting choice on
Billington’s part that Paul has his eyes closed and
almost appears to be praying when Henderson orders
Straker and Foster to the office. Paul has to decide
whether to follow his commander even though he doesn’t
understand the plan or follow Henderson. He chooses
right. And then Straker begins to explain and Paul’s
admiration grows. I think this is when a good bit of
the hero worship starts.

Good old Miss Ealand. I wondered at first why she was
looking out of the window. She does a lot more than
just the secretarial work. She obviously had a great
deal of trust from her boss.

“Straker, sly old…” “Fox?” LOL. Anybody have any
trouble supplying a work Alec might have used? That
cracks me up.

As for the conflict between Straker and Henderson,
there are three possible reasons. One is jealousy.
Henderson was Straker’s commander when the idea of
SHADO was developed and he never got over Straker
being given command (and succeeding). And second
possible reason is the friction caused by a father and
son sort of relationship when the “son” becomes
independent. The third is the conflict that occurs
between two people who are too much alike. There’s
maybe a hint that this is part of the problem at the
end “Like you?”, but we were never given a definitive
answer for why. Maybe a bit of all three reasons
factor into the problems they were having.

And Straker’s last mode? That of the graceful victor.
After sticking it to Henderson quite successfully, he
doesn’t gloat and is conciliatory towards his boss. A
class act.

Diorite

----- Original Message -----
From: Diorite Gabbro
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:13 AM
Subject: [SHADO] Conflict


<................
And Straker comes up with a shocker of a solution to
his problem. It illustrates Straker's brilliance and
his ability to manipulate people and events. Not only
does his plan convince Henderson he was right about
clearing the space junk but it allows him to really
stick it to Henderson. You can tell by the expression
on Straker's face that he really gets a kick out of
that. The film director in Straker's office only
makes it better with the line about loving Straker's
policy of non-interference. LOL. Straker even offers
to explain himself but Henderson is in too much of a
high dudgeon to listen. ................>




--------------------------------------------------------




I've always had trouble wrapping my head around the feud between Henderson & Straker. I prefer to think of it as just plain bad writing that the whole thing looks so silly and incomprehensible.
I like to think that, yes, it is because they are so much alike that there is occasional friction between them....but for the most part (meaning that in the background where we don't necesarily see them most of the time), they are BOTH very competent professionals and have the ultimate respect for each other. It is just the worst case scenarios that they keep highlighting throughout the series.
Somehow, it detracts from the series to assume that Henderson is really the buffoon that they keep seeming to portray him as.....

JMHO, Dave H.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I thought it was quite clearly spelled out that Henderson and Straker both believe they are the one who is in the right and Henderson's position is that he's not prepared to spend millions and millions of dollars unless Straker proves beyond any SHADO of a doubt that they're justified. After all, a man in Straker's position could easily get out of hand without a watchdog.

Z.

davrecon <[hidden email]> wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Diorite Gabbro
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2007 12:13 AM
Subject: [SHADO] Conflict

<................
And Straker comes up with a shocker of a solution to
his problem. It illustrates Straker's brilliance and
his ability to manipulate people and events. Not only
does his plan convince Henderson he was right about
clearing the space junk but it allows him to really
stick it to Henderson. You can tell by the expression
on Straker's face that he really gets a kick out of
that. The film director in Straker's office only
makes it better with the line about loving Straker's
policy of non-interference. LOL. Straker even offers
to explain himself but Henderson is in too much of a
high dudgeon to listen. ................>

--------------------------------------------------------

I've always had trouble wrapping my head around the feud between Henderson & Straker. I prefer to think of it as just plain bad writing that the whole thing looks so silly and incomprehensible.
I like to think that, yes, it is because they are so much alike that there is occasional friction between them....but for the most part (meaning that in the background where we don't necesarily see them most of the time), they are BOTH very competent professionals and have the ultimate respect for each other. It is just the worst case scenarios that they keep highlighting throughout the series.
Somehow, it detracts from the series to assume that Henderson is really the buffoon that they keep seeming to portray him as.....

JMHO, Dave H.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






---------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> davrecon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------
--- zerg harry <[hidden email]> wrote:

I've seen that this question of the conflict between
Straker and Henderson has generated a bit of
discussion before. Dave goes for bad writing (always
a possibility). I could just assume that there was
never any intent of the stories having continuity. Z.
tells us it's spelled out in Henderson thinks Straker
is wasting money.

I don't know, to me it seems like there is something a
little more personal to it. After all, Henderson
helped plan SHADO, monstrous security costs, fleet of
submarines, moon bases and all - they are mention in
Confetti Check. Straker may be executing the plan,
but the initial abitious plan was presented with
Henderson's name on it. Now he thinks too much money
is being spent? And what if he's wrong? "Sorry,
Straker, I was wrong. We really needed to prevent a
massive attack, but now the aliens have taken over
earth, and millions of people have died. We'll try to
fix it." When faced with an alien invasion is that a
risk you want to take?

Straker was the man put in charge. I know some think
Henderson recommended him, but the only thing on film
is that the committee picked Straker. Straker is the
one whose job it was to track exactly what the aliens
had been doing and try to anticipate them. It seems a
little peevish to gripe about the money that way.

The point is well taken that Straker's position is one
that could invite abuse. If I take the story as
realistic, that's one of the reasons Straker was the
absolute best choice because of his certitude of duty
- he is absolute in duing his duty and nothing more.

Diorite

If we look outside "Conflict", Henderson states in Confetti Check "I'll be holding the purse-strings" and in "Kill Straker" he entertains the idea that "Straker has become mentally-obsessed with his command and has to be removed" and in "Destruction" warns Straker that he is "getting too suspicious...it's almost a complex" and in Conflict he assumes Straker's disobedience is due to "a mental abberration, the strain of command". I'd say that Henderson is always watchful for any hint that Straker is not reliable or mentally stable and if his new role is to "hold the purse-strings", he is simply forcing Straker to provide proof and justification that more money is needed.

In "Close-Up" Henderson is withering in his sarcasm until Straker spells out his plan to get the goods on the alien planet...and then he gets approved $1 Billion and gets a launch-time from NASA organised for him into the bargain. I think the space-clearance program just doesn't seem justified until Straker proves it. The real problem is that the aliens are so good and concealing their activities, Maddox's death just looks like pilot error.

But to me, the conflict ends when Straker says "If only you hadn't been so positive that you were right" and Henderson replies "Like you?" There is a subtle, almost imperceptable nod from Straker, I think, and then he says "I'll walk you to your car". This final line means "conflict over" to me, it's Straker's admission that Henderson was just doing his job too, and I think it's Straker offering the olive branch to him. Two men both trying to do what's right. That's how I always see it.

Z.

Diorite Gabbro <[hidden email]> wrote:
> davrecon <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------
--- zerg harry <[hidden email]> wrote:

I've seen that this question of the conflict between
Straker and Henderson has generated a bit of
discussion before. Dave goes for bad writing (always
a possibility). I could just assume that there was
never any intent of the stories having continuity. Z.
tells us it's spelled out in Henderson thinks Straker
is wasting money.

I don't know, to me it seems like there is something a
little more personal to it. After all, Henderson
helped plan SHADO, monstrous security costs, fleet of
submarines, moon bases and all - they are mention in
Confetti Check. Straker may be executing the plan,
but the initial abitious plan was presented with
Henderson's name on it. Now he thinks too much money
is being spent? And what if he's wrong? "Sorry,
Straker, I was wrong. We really needed to prevent a
massive attack, but now the aliens have taken over
earth, and millions of people have died. We'll try to
fix it." When faced with an alien invasion is that a
risk you want to take?

Straker was the man put in charge. I know some think
Henderson recommended him, but the only thing on film
is that the committee picked Straker. Straker is the
one whose job it was to track exactly what the aliens
had been doing and try to anticipate them. It seems a
little peevish to gripe about the money that way.

The point is well taken that Straker's position is one
that could invite abuse. If I take the story as
realistic, that's one of the reasons Straker was the
absolute best choice because of his certitude of duty
- he is absolute in duing his duty and nothing more.

Diorite






---------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], zerg harry <zergharry@...> wrote:
 
> But to me, the conflict ends when Straker says "If only you hadn't
been so positive that you were right" and Henderson replies "Like
you?" There is a subtle, almost imperceptable nod from Straker, I
think, and then he says "I'll walk you to your car". This final line
means "conflict over" to me, it's Straker's admission that Henderson
was just doing his job too, and I think it's Straker offering the
olive branch to him. Two men both trying to do what's right. That's
how I always see it.
>    
> Z.

Amen.

David

--- In [hidden email], zerg harry <zergharry@...> wrote:
>
> If we look outside "Conflict", Henderson states in Confetti
Check "I'll be holding the purse-strings" and in "Kill Straker" he
entertains the idea that "Straker has become mentally-obsessed with
his command and has to be removed" and in "Destruction" warns
Straker that he is "getting too suspicious...it's almost a complex"
and in Conflict he assumes Straker's disobedience is due to "a
mental abberration, the strain of command". I'd say that Henderson
is always watchful for any hint that Straker is not reliable or
mentally stable and if his new role is to "hold the purse-strings",
he is simply forcing Straker to provide proof and justification that
more money is needed.
But to me, the conflict ends when Straker says "If only you hadn't
been so positive that you were right" and Henderson replies "Like
you?" There is a subtle, almost imperceptable nod from Straker, I
think, and then he says "I'll walk you to your car". This final line
means "conflict over" to me, it's Straker's admission that Henderson
was just doing his job too, and I think it's Straker offering the
olive branch to him. Two men both trying to do what's right. That's
how I always see it.
>    
> Z.

It would seem that, as you say, conflict is over, because in
Timelash, Henderson describes Straker as SHADO's most valuable
commodity. I can't remember the exact term he used, so am trusting
to memory for the gist of it.

Hello:

I've been reading these posts for a while. I was too a
fan of this very short lived show as well.

Does anyone else think that all of this talk about one
or two of only 26 episodes, 35 years after they aired,
may constitute wildly over-analyzing the situation?

What I mean is, this show is pretty straightforward.
Trying to discern minor subtle personality differences
between characters that even the writers of the show
could not have possibly fathomed is a little absurd,
is it not?

I can see how fans of some show such as "Dark Shadows"
with 1200+ episodes can glean little things out that
others may not know, but I can't see that with UFO.

In short, I think you folks are just looking for
things that are simply not there.

Sue in Maine


--- docmed03 <[hidden email]> wrote:


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Sue,

on one hand I totally agree with you in the sense that I doubt the
writers put much thought into developing the main characters very
much - as per any Gerry Anderson show really. So I do find it faintly
ridiculous that so much can be read into the small amount of screen
time these characters actually got. But perhaps that shows what a
good core cast it had.

But on the other I do like reading the theorizing (don't necessarily
agree with everything) and just wish the show ran for a couple more
series with some proper character development. But even if we had
gotten more eps it wasn't really Gerry's strong point of his shows
was it?!

Regards,
Barry

ps "I was too a fan"? written this way suggests you no longer are?!?


--- In [hidden email], Susan Smith <suesmith3@...> wrote:

--- Susan Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

It may be over-analyzing, but I'm having fun and I see
no harm in it. Stick around and I hope to get to all
26 episodes. :)

Diorite

I agree Sue. UFO is a great show, and was fairly
daring in its day for attempting to get non-sci-fi
plots into the mix, but it is still rampantly sexist
and very very dated.

Rick

--- Susan Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Characterisation was not a strong suit of UFO or any
other Anderson programme. Space 1999 would lit slip
little character moments more frequently, but even
that was more concerned with the plot of the week.

Rick

--- naughtyhector <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sue,
>
> on one hand I totally agree with you in the sense
> that I doubt the
> writers put much thought into developing the main
> characters very
> much - as per any Gerry Anderson show really.

Personally, I find all the speculation makes for very interesting reading.
Certainly FAR better than NO traffic in the group. I'm sure that after so many years, any question about the series with a DEFINITIVE answer has been gone over at least a dozen times.

Perhaps people ARE looking for things that may not be there, but it IS very thought provoking.

If you feel you have something more significant to contribute, feel free. Short of that, I think you'd be better off not trying to rain on the parade of others in the group.

Jeff

Susan Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello:

I've been reading these posts for a while. I was too a
fan of this very short lived show as well.

Does anyone else think that all of this talk about one
or two of only 26 episodes, 35 years after they aired,
may constitute wildly over-analyzing the situation?

What I mean is, this show is pretty straightforward.
Trying to discern minor subtle personality differences
between characters that even the writers of the show
could not have possibly fathomed is a little absurd,
is it not?

I can see how fans of some show such as "Dark Shadows"
with 1200+ episodes can glean little things out that
others may not know, but I can't see that with UFO.

In short, I think you folks are just looking for
things that are simply not there.

Sue in Maine

--- docmed03 <[hidden email]> wrote:

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Diorite,

I see no harm either. In fact, I enjoy reading your posts immensely! Please keep up the good work. I'm sure that they are appreciated by the vast majority of folks here. : )

Jeff

Diorite Gabbro <[hidden email]> wrote:
--- Susan Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

It may be over-analyzing, but I'm having fun and I see
no harm in it. Stick around and I hope to get to all
26 episodes. :)

Diorite





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In [hidden email], Jeffrey Nelson <1shado1@...> wrote:
>
> Personally, I find all the speculation makes for very interesting
reading.
> Certainly FAR better than NO traffic in the group. I'm sure that
after so many years, any question about the series with a DEFINITIVE
answer has been gone over at least a dozen times.
>    
> Perhaps people ARE looking for things that may not be there, but
it IS very thought provoking.
>    
> If you feel you have something more significant to contribute,
feel free. Short of that, I think you'd be better off not trying to
rain on the parade of others in the group.
>    
> Jeff
>
Jeff,
 
I don't think that Susan is trying to rain on anyone's parade. She's
merely expressing an opinion. And she expressed it in a respectful
manner. It's a different opinion to yours, but that doesn't mean it's
any less valid. Differing viewpoints are part of the 'traffic' of the
group, Jeff. :-)

David

Ed Straker, and SHADO and the Aliens are highly ambiguous, often presented in different aspects by different writers and directors, and there is a lot of implication about what is not said. I'd say a lot more can be read into UFO than most series on TV.

A case in point: in "Court Martial", Foster raises the question "why would Straker have a display...behind his desk?" since he doesn't exactly display an "artistic temperament" and then breaks through it to reveal a hidden escape exit. Foster hints that the motivation for Straker having this exit is "self-preservation".

What do you deduce from that then? To me it says that Straker is a man who is well-aware of his enemies and lives in fear of attack from within his very office and has made secret preparations to escape should that day ever come. It talks volumes about his character.

There are other incidents in other episodes which correlate to this scene. The hidden chamber with the rocket launcher Straker reveals in Timelash and Ginny Lake's comment "you've kept very quiet about this" and Straker's response "it's that only bl**dy-mindedness". This suggests he is determined to survive and to fight back as well, to such a degree that he's planned far ahead. But he hasn't entrusted anyone else, not even his closest associates, with the information. Does he also suspect the alien ability to brainwash or control his friends, the potential to turn them against him? Did he suspect this as far back as the events of Confetti Check A-OK?

A huge part of UFO's appeal for me is the way small aspects of Straker's character, the nature of the aliens and the nature of the SHADO organisation seem to fit together like pieces of an intellectual jigsaw puzzle to form a deeper, more intricate picture over the course of the series.

The other thing which appeals to me is the way that the costumes, props, hairstyles, cars, model work, etc, all add up to make the "world" in which UFO takes place a unique one that you cannot see in any other series. Even the dullest, most mundane episode is worth it for me because it still takes place in that exotic alternative reality of a groovy high-tech 1980s that never was.
Z.


Hello:

I've been reading these posts for a while. I was too a
fan of this very short lived show as well.

Does anyone else think that all of this talk about one
or two of only 26 episodes, 35 years after they aired,
may constitute wildly over-analyzing the situation?

What I mean is, this show is pretty straightforward.
Trying to discern minor subtle personality differences
between characters that even the writers of the show
could not have possibly fathomed is a little absurd,
is it not?

I can see how fans of some show such as "Dark Shadows"
with 1200+ episodes can glean little things out that
others may not know, but I can't see that with UFO.

In short, I think you folks are just looking for
things that are simply not there.

Sue in Maine

--- docmed03 <[hidden email]> wrote:

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 





---------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 09:15:07 -0700 (PDT)
Susan Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:


You're absolutely right, Susan, and although it's fun to
analyse the scripts for clues about personalities and
relationships, it does require suspension of disbelief,
and it's well worth remembering that almost none of the
conclusions we reach were actually intended by the writers,
so - well said.

James

In a message dated 10/19/2007 5:10:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
[hidden email] writes:

You're absolutely right, Susan, and although it's fun to
analyse the scripts for clues about personalities and
relationships, it does require suspension of disbelief,
and it's well worth remembering that almost none of the
conclusions we reach were actually intended by the writers,
so - well said.




But then again, this is the type of stuff that inspires fan fiction writers,
and some of it can be quite good. I own a printed UFO fanzine and it is
among my favorites.

Wendy



************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

CONTENTS DELETED

I thought the characterisation in UFO was outstanding and ranked alongside Blakes 7 as some of the best I've ever seen in TV SF. Episodes like Confetti Check and Sub Smash gave Straker and co more depth in a couple of episodes than whole seasons of Doctor Who or Star Trek could muster.
Z.

richard curzon <[hidden email]> wrote:
Characterisation was not a strong suit of UFO or any
other Anderson programme. Space 1999 would lit slip
little character moments more frequently, but even
that was more concerned with the plot of the week.

Rick

--- naughtyhector <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Sue,
>
> on one hand I totally agree with you in the sense
> that I doubt the
> writers put much thought into developing the main
> characters very
> much - as per any Gerry Anderson show really.





---------------------------------
Sick of deleting your inbox? Yahoo!7 Mail has free unlimited storage. Get it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]