Farscape review John Quixote Oops I Got Fooled Again part 4

Home ¤ John Quixote: "Oops, I Got Fooled Again"

John Quixote: "Oops, I Got Fooled Again"
Ross Ruediger ¤ 30 July 2002

PreRamble ¤ Set Up ¤ The Key ¤ Conclusions and Final Thoughts

Conclusions and Final Thoughts

I'd be remiss in my analysis of the episode if I made no real mention of the original Cervantes piece Don Quixote, but I'd be just as remiss to pretend that I'm an expert on it, or indeed that I've read the book at all. I have not. So I simply made a quick trip to Encarta for the following bits on which people can meditate:

"Don Quixote (Part I, 1605; Part II, 1615) by Spanish writer Miguel de Cervantes describes conflict between an individual and society. The novel is the comic story of a nobleman who continually misinterprets his encounters with other people and thus has a unique view of his society."

That one's good - it spins the events of JQ and largely seems to back up my theories regarding the conflicts of the episode.

Here's a different one:
"Another Spanish novel with an episodic plot became one of the world's best-known literary works. Don Quixote (Part I, 1605; Part II, 1615) by Miguel de Cervantes follows the travels of a Spanish nobleman who encounters adventures and misfortunes after he strikes out to combat the world's injustices."

That's not John Quixote, that's just John Crichton (except for the Spanish part, although oddly, John spoke Spanish in the previous episode, "Natural Election").

Lastly, the dictionary says:
"Don Quixote (plural Don Qui·xo·tes) noun: an impractical idealist who champions hopeless causes."

Definitely John Crichton. Up and down, up and down, up and down…

In true Farscape fashion, many of the why's, where's and how's of the game go unexplained. The word "level" was used with reckless abandon throughout this critique. It seems that there were really only three levels of the game - the Gammak Base, the fantasy world, and the faux-Moya, which was the darkest, most malevolent level, as it directly played with John's deepest fears. Of course it was also the one that most closely mirrored his reality. It seemed to adapt itself through John's mind, connecting the dots of certain situations. For instance, Stark didn't know of the D'Argo/Chiana/Jool triangle (he was either on Talyn or simply absent as that developed) and he certainly didn't know Scorpius would voluntarily become a prisoner aboard Moya. Maybe that's why Chiana was the perfect Sancho Panza - maybe the game was able to utilize her ESP to smooth certain details out.

Stark credited the design of the game to "Yoti". The journey log on The SciFi Channel's Farscape page says, "Incredibly, this game was based on my memories. When the other Crichton, my twinned self, was dying, Stark mystically eased his passage, absorbing that Crichton's memories in the process. After Stark left to search for his dead, beloved Zhaan, he apparently sold his - and my - memories to a game designer named Yoti. And Yoti turned Stark's neural template into Super Mario Crichton." This is an explanation, but since it's not information that's put forth within the episode, I'm considering it suspect. Why on earth would Stark "sell" his memories? I don't buy it. (The same source credits Geoff Bennett as the director of "John Quixote", when in reality it was Tony Tilse.) Since we've never seen or heard of this "Yoti" person before, and he is mentioned in only the briefest of passing, I offer up the possibility that Yoti is Stark himself. Here's the exchange:

CHIANA: OK, Stark, some questions...who's the designer of the game?

STARK: Yoti.

CHIANA: Neural template?

STARK: Yours truly. And an infusion of the dead John Crichton's memories.

A couple of possibilities:
1. Couldn't "Yoti" be a kind of slang for "Yours truly"?
2. Spelled backwards "Yoti" is "I Toy" = "I'm toying with you."

I realize I'm grasping at some serious straws here, but "John Quixote" is a big puzzle, and it'll be the fans job for years to come to try and break it all down, and put it back together. The virtual Stark gave credit to both John and his "tragic brother". An evil, nasty thought - what if the other Crichton had a willing hand in its creation and it was sent back to Moya with his other belongings? (I'm not even sure what that does to my entire critique.) Then again, Moya was indeed out of pocket for quite some time, and no real explanation was ever given. Did she and Pilot encounter Stark somewhere along the way, (post dumping of Jool and Noranti)? Or did Chiana simply purchase it by chance, mixed in with a bunch of other VR games. This last scenario seems the most likely…and yet it doesn't. What are the odds? It seems too rooted in coincidence. Have John and the crew become such celebrities in the UT that there are people everywhere playing a game based on his memories? Like the rest of Season 4 thus far, there is quite a bit to chew on here.

Much of what the virtual Stark stated as "fact" was rooted in trickery, so when dissecting the story, it's difficult to take too much stock in his word. Hopefully the game will be made mention of upon the real Stark's reappearance on Moya and he'll offer up his reasoning behind it. Certainly an explanation within the episode would have been far less engaging than the madness at hand. I find it hard to believe Stark has the kind of contempt for John the game seemed to exhibit (only the other Crichton could have disliked him that much). Maybe Stark, knowing how resourceful John can be, knew he would eventually beat the game - thus there was never any real danger; maybe it was all just to teach John a lesson about the way he sees people. I can't help but think the game couldn't have come at better time in John Crichton's life…

The return of Virginia Hey to Farscape is an event that fans have been waiting for basically since she left the show. Hopefully people aren't disappointed at her brief amount of screen time and that she wasn't the genuine article. For less than two minutes Virginia owned the screen and every word that came out of her mouth meant something. I think it was pretty obvious that she was wearing a skullcap - not that it looked bad. Actually it looked quite good, but the shape of her head was just slightly different than when she was a regular. The important thing is that it was Zhaan and that she was there and that she was good. That she should be so pivotal to both the resolution and climax of the story speaks volumes about her place in the Farscape universe, or at least Browder's fertile imagination.

Director Tony Tilse seems to do an exceptional job in translating the script; in a story like this, however, it's always tough to spot where the writer's vision ends and the director's job picks up. Amongst his many Farscape credits are "Green-Eyed Monster" and "Scratch 'N' Sniff", both of whose direction is echoed here. There's a particular "wide-angle close-up" shot that he used to great effect in "Green-Eyed Monster", and he uses it again in "John Quixote" - sparingly, and only when it packs the proper dramatic punch. His use of split-screen imagery is a fine example of him making the most out of Farscape's new widescreen format. It's a credit to his talent that I was seriously disoriented the first time around, as I'm certain that was the goal.

Finally, how does "John Quixote" stack up against "Won't Get Fooled Again"? "John Quixote" is more ambitious in its scope, message and ideas than "Won't Get Fooled Again". I'm not sure if it succeeds on as many levels, but maybe that's only because it has so many more on which it has to succeed. Something that must be taken into account is its placement in the series. "Won't Get Fooled Again" was Season 2 - things were considerably less complicated back then. Here we are a third of the way through Season 4. There's a lot of psychological baggage to cover within "John Quixote", and Browder would have sold the story short had he not taken it into account. The gags are funnier in "Won't Get Fooled Again" - it's a more "entertaining" tale, but it's not as deep as "John Quixote". The "gags" in "John Quixote" are often disturbing (although none of them top the Oedipal bit from "Won't Get Fooled Again") - upon a closer look, it's not quite the kind of fun one expects from this type of story, and that's probably a good thing. There are interesting viewpoints on display in "John Quixote" and they should give John Crichton something to brood over for a long time to come, especially upon realizing that his friend Stark was the villain; this wasn't just some random Scarran. Let's hope, for his sake, John has indeed learned some sort of lesson.

Oh, and did I mention that Ben Browder is one twisted man? Do I even have to?

Special thanks to Sorlk Lewis for offering up counter-opinions in the writing of this article.
Ross Ruediger is a Texas-based screenwriter and filmmaker. He can always be reached at lynchnut@hotmail.com.