Anyone ever notice the prescience of the Outer Limits episode, "OBIT"? The machine looks like a primitive form of the internet, and the episode deals with what is essentially futuristic (for its time) wiretapping.
Jeff Corey, who played Mr. Lomax, was blacklisted for about a decade, prior to this episode, because he would not name names for the anti-communist witch hunt propagators. (Mc. Carthy, and/or HUAC). In the interim, he had taught an acting class, which the likes of Marlon Brando, and other famous Hollywood actors attended. Still, this episode of the Outer Limits must have hit close to home, for him.
"OBIT" also has much to say about television addiction, and human nature. Its message reminds me somewhat of the Twilight Zone episode, "The Monsters are Due on Maple Street". "OBIT" is my all-time favorite Outer Limits episode.
I remember Jeff Corey fondly for OBIT and for the Star Trek episode The Cloud Minders, where he played Stratos's arrogant High Advisor Plassus; and for the first series' episode of The Night Gallery, The Dead Man.
Yes, I found OBIT to basically be a precursor of Internet social networking, especially Facebook. It even mirrors that application that indicates where a person is at any time via GPS. The reference to the family's marital troubles is mirrored by the fact that many marriages have ended because women have been socializing outside the relationship with other guys on Facebook, and the husbands have found out.
I would only quibble with the O.P. that this is like anti-Communist efforts in the 1950s. In fact, at the time, it was the Communist states, especially the Soviet Union and East Germany, which were far more given to policing their own people. There's a good reason why those were called "police states." The U.S. was by no means innocent of this, but it was far, far worse under Communism.
Your comparison of OBIT to internet social networking is interesting.
But I have to agree with the OP. American anticommunism and the inquiries of HUAC are what the writers of OBIT clearly have in mind. It doesn't compare to the situation east of the Iron Curtain. If one were looking for a comparison to that, one would better reach for Twilight Zone's "The Obsolete Man."
Actually, if anything, the episode is a defense and validation of the anti-communist House Un-American Activities Committee. Just as there really were communists in Hollywood at the time (no one denies this), and the goal of communism is to undermine and topple the so-called "capitalist" world order (again, no one denies this -- it is the stated aim of communism), so is there really and truly an alien conspiracy in OBIT.
What the senator is doing to uncover this plot is a more tempered, measured, and rational version of what McCarthy was doing so erratically and poorly.
If the episode wanted to condemn HUAC, it would have presented the inquisatorial senator as the enemy, making him the alien. In fact, he is the hero and his efforts alert society to the alien (read, communist) threat.
Actually, if anything, the episode is a defense and validation of the anti-communist House Un-American Activities Committee... What the senator is doing to uncover this plot is a more tempered, measured, and rational version of what McCarthy was doing so erratically and poorly... If the episode wanted to condemn HUAC, it would have presented the inquisatorial senator as the enemy, making him the alien. In fact, he is the hero and his efforts alert society to the alien (read, communist) threat.[quote] The episode can be read both ways. Perhaps how one sees it depends on one's politics. It can also be seen as HUAC comprising the alien or un-American element that demanded to invade peoples' lives, and persecuting them based on their personal views, which was how Lomax and the Helosian powers-that-be at Cypress Hills were using the OBIT machine. How one interprets Senator Orville and his opponent, the insidious Byron Lomax, really depends on who one sees as the villains of the Second Red Scare - the people denounced as un-American, or McCarthy and his imitators themselves. [quote]Just as there really were communists in Hollywood at the time (no one denies this), and the goal of communism is to undermine and topple the so-called "capitalist" world order (again, no one denies this -- it is the stated aim of communism), so is there really and truly an alien conspiracy in OBIT.
I do not buy into the arch-conservative (read: Republican) narrative of what took place during the 50's, that has been popularized by today's right-wingers. American communists, socialists, and other fellow travelers were not the boogeymen that right-wing witch-hunters made them out to be. Nor were the Soviet Union and Red China the threat that conservative ideology found it necessary to paint them. The wheels of conservativism today are still greased with that same kind of absurd, baseless fear-mongering, with only a change in some of the casted villains, since the communists are no longer around to come out and play. These days it's liberals, socialists, and homosexuals.
But all this is a digression from the purer discussion of the episode. Most who analyze OBIT tend to see it as an indictment of television itself, a sort of "biting the hand that feeds it" sort of episode. http://www.davidjschow.com/limits/ol_episodes6.html
§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§
reply share
I do not buy into the arch-conservative (read: Republican) narrative of what took place during the 50's, that has been popularized by today's right-wingers. American communists, socialists, and other fellow travelers were not the boogeymen that right-wing witch-hunters made them out to be. Nor were the Soviet Union and Red China the threat that conservative ideology found it necessary to paint them. The wheels of conservativism today are still greased with that same kind of absurd, baseless fear-mongering, with only a change in some of the casted villains, since the communists are no longer around to come out and play. These days it's liberals, socialists, and homosexuals.
Well, first of all, I am not a Republican (nor am I a Democrat), so I certainly don't take my cues for interpreting television from any political party.
Every ideology, by its nature, tries to "win." This isn't a conspiracy. This is human nature. Whether or not one considers communists a "threat" simply depends on whether one favours communism or not. If one likes communism, then obviously its encroachment is not seen as a threat but something one wishes for. On the other hand, if one think that communism is a terrible method of government that leads to a horrible existence for its subjects, then one does consider it a threat.
Personally, I had family in East Germany and in Poland before the fall of the Berlin Wall, many of whom managed to find their way to North America through desperate measures, so I have their personal testaments as to what life behind the Iron Curtain was like. It was horrible beyond imagining. And the totalitarian and insidious behaviour of the commmunist Stasi in East Germany is thoroughly documented.
One man's "right-wing witch hunters" is another man's "defenders of a non-communist political system." Again, it simply comes down to whether one likes the ideology or not.
Likewise, someone who likes fascism would understandably say that today, there are many "left wing witch hunters" who oppose fascism as vehemently as McCarthy, etc., opposed communism. The left engages in "fear mongering" against fascists just as much as the right engages in "fear mongering" against communists. (This is inevitable.) Now, whether these anti-fascists are "witch-hunters" or "defenders of a non-fascist political system" also depends on whether one likes fascism or not. To a fascist, they certainly would be seen as "witch hunters." A fascist wouuld also say that Germany and Japan were "not the threat that liberal ideology found it necessary to paint them." So you see, it's all subjective.
"Witch hunting" thus, is also purely subjective, based on whether one wants the system being hunted to triumph, or to be prevented.
But all this is a digression from the purer discussion of the episode. Most who analyze OBIT tend to see it as an indictment of television itself, a sort of "biting the hand that feeds it" sort of episode.
Yes, there is undoubtedly that. But I was pointing out that IF one brings in politics, then there is no question that the episode, as it was filmed, more closely ends up being a defense of "witch hunting," because in the episode, the "witch threat" is real and immediate.
reply share
tracy, you need to watch this episode again. O.B.I.T. was not designed to search for aliens, it was CREATED by the aliens. They have themselves secretly set up the surveillance system in order to undermine the human species through paranoia and demoralization so that the aliens can conquer humanity.
This episode makes the point that McCarthyism was one of the most effective assaults on American democracy that the communists could ever have hoped for. The satirical insinuation is that HUAC might as well have been created by communism itself.
it was CREATED by the aliens. They have themselves secretly set up the surveillance system in order to undermine the human species through paranoia and demoralization so that the aliens can conquer humanity.
That is exactly the point. OBIT functions is a metaphor for the Communist practice of setting up all-seeing secret police scrutinizing the population's every move. In the contemporary context, OBIT is parallel to the activities of the KGB in the USSR, the Stasi in East Germany, etc. Every Communist nation behind the Iron Curtain had an invasive OBIT-like super-police system watching every move of its populace, in true Big Brother fashion.
This, the episode shows, is what the U.S. could be in for under creeping Communism. Communism would have been a far greater assault on American democracy than the necessary efforts to prevent its infiltration.
McCarthy, on the other hand, is metaphorically represented by the episode's Senator (albeit a judicious rather than erratic McCarthy), who must of necessity probe deeply into the system that exists to expose the alien infiltrators (communism often being termed in popular discourse as an "alien" ideology, given its foreign origins).
reply share
"McCarthy...is metaphorically represented by the episode's Senator (albeit a judicious rather than erratic McCarthy), who must of necessity probe deeply into the system that exists to expose the alien infiltrators."
This is nothing more than your own projection, based on your apparent need to justify McCarthyism and HUAC. The last part of your statement couldn't be more incorrect. I'll say it again: OBIT did NOT exist to "expose the alien infiltrators". It was built BY the alien infiltrators, to corrupt the concept of national security by transforming it into, yes, the environment of a police state. Much as HUAC, as it grew in power, began to resemble in it's tactics and behavior the very Soviet system it was created to counter.
You really didn't pay attention when you watched this episode. The Senator went to the facility to investigate a murder. He didn't even know about OBIT until he got there. What he discovered was an atmosphere of paranoia, demoralization and despair CAUSED BY OBIT. If anything, the Senator represents Judge Welch, exposing the damage caused by OBIT (HUAC).
There is no way the writer, director, and producers of this episode would have created anything that in any sense was a justification for McCarthyism. And there is absolutely no way that Jeff Corey, a victim of the McCarthy Blacklist, would have been cast in this episode if it had. Nor would he have accepted such a role even if it had been offered to him.
"Projection"? By that reasoning, any analysis of any episode is "projection," and I did pay attention. Your analysis is nothing more than your own projection, based on your apparent need to denounce McCarthyism and HUAC.
"OBIT did NOT exist "to expose the alien infiltrators." It was built BY the alien infiltrators, to corrupt the concept of national security by transforming it into, yes, the environment of a police state.
Ah, but you see, I never said that OBIT existed "to expose the alien infiltrators." I said the opposite. I said that the SENATOR is there to "to expose the alien infiltrators," the alien infiltrators being the metaphor for the communists (communism commonly being referred to an an "alien" ideology, and for good reason).
OBIT was created to keep tabs on the people, just as the communist Stasi and KGB were. Which is why the episode is a denunciation of the Soviet system -- communism -- which did engender just such a police state.
The Senator must of needs probe the environment of the base to get to the truth, just as HUAC needed to probe the environment of Hollywood hard to expose the communists in the system, who, if they succeeded in instituting their ideology, would have caused the U.S. to suffer under OBIT/KGB policing. The episode indicates that OBIT/KGB/communist surveillance is monstrous, but that to root it out, vigilance and probing is needed.
See, if the episode had wanted to condemn HUAC, it could have easily done so. It could have turned the Senator into an alien who is introducing OBIT. But it didn't. The Senator is the hero. He is a "corrected" McCarthy, one who exposes the creeping communist evil but in a judicious rather than erratic manner.
The Senator went to the facility to investigate a murder. He didn't even know about OBIT until he got there. What he discovered was an atmosphere of paranoia, demoralization and despair CAUSED BY OBIT.
Absolutely. The Senator discovered a darker evil in the course of the investigation of the a crime. He discovered at atmosphere similar to that found in the Soviet states under their totalitarian police conditions. The episode warns against communist infiltration.
There is no way the writer, director, and producers of this episode would have created anything that in any sense was a justification for McCarthyism. And there is absolutely no way that Jeff Corey, a victim of the McCarthy Blacklist, would have been cast in this episode if it had. Nor would he have accepted such a role even if it had been offered to him.
That's what literary critics call the "intentional fallacy" in interpretation. What the creators' motives are, or may have been, is simply not germane to the analysis, as (a) one never knows for sure what every creators' intention is, and (b) that doesn't mean that the work succeeds in its original intent, or whether it subverts itself (as, for example, Milton's Paradise Lost is often read as a near-glorification of Satan, despite the fact that the author, a Puritan, at least in his conscious mind, undoubtedly meant Satan to be the enemy). What matters is the work as it stands.
reply share
You have a striking obsession with re-writing and re-interpreting other peoples' work after they are already completed. You have a clear need to see aspects of these episodes of THE OUTER LIMITS that are simply based on your desire to see them that way. As an intellectual exercise it can be entertaining, I suppose, as one can if one choses interprete ANY story in any way one desires...if one has a strong enough compulsion to do so. But in doing so one usually only reveals, as in your case, the high degree of their motivating bias.
I didn't come to THE OUTER LIMITS with a "need" to interpret the episodes in a particular way. To be honest, I was just expecting this show to be about "the thrills and the chills", so to speak. I was looking for good scary stories. That this series contained so much more than that was the REAL thrill, and the reason why this is my favorite TV series of all time. The brilliant insights and observations about the nature of the human condition found in stories like "OBIT" and "The Architects of Fear" are experiences I am eternally grateful for, even though I didn't actually expect to find them in the first place. And I sure as hell am not going to apologize for "getting" what people like Stefano and Stevens were trying to say with these episodes.
But I strongly suspect, lussurioso, that you have sufficiently steeled your mind against any viewpoint that might threaten your own. I must admit, you are the first person I've encountered who has felt such a strong need to reverse the intention of a story like "OBIT" to suit your own personal beliefs. But I've been around too long to think you're the only one out there.
I've said my piece. I know it hasn't changed your mind about your interpretation by one iota, but I stand by all my points. You can hold to your own beliefs, and perhaps it's useful for people to read your interpretations so that they can delve deeper into this outstanding television episode. At which point they can make up their own mind.
You have a striking obsession with re-writing and re-interpreting other peoples' work after they are already completed. You have a clear need to see aspects of these episodes of THE OUTER LIMITS that are simply based on your desire to see them that way.
...in doing so one usually only reveals, as in your case, the high degree of their motivating bias.
you are the first person I've encountered who has felt such a strong need to reverse the intention of a story like "OBIT" to suit your own personal beliefs.
Rather, you seem to have a desire to see the episode your own particular way, and you appear to have a great deal of "motivating bias." So much so that you shift from addressing the episode to resorting to an ad hominem fallacy.
And on the contrary, I have not "rewritten" anything, nor "reinterpreted" a work, but interpreted it directly as it exists.
But the humour in your remarks surely doesn't escape you. The premise that your opinion is free of "motivating bias" and some else's is not is laughable. This is where political discussions usually go south: "You're the biased one." "No, you are." "Fox is biased." "No, MSNBC is biased." It descends into mere ad hominem attacks, and regrettably, that's all that your last statements have been: ad hominem; critique the critiquer to avoid the points.
If we must enter those assessments into the discussion, then it is obvious to me that your own biases are clouding your interpretation. You simply cannot recognize that the episode does not do what you wish it to do.
But again, such mutual back-and-forths about "bias" are fruitless and not illuminating. In literary criticism, at least, no matter how far apart scholars are on their positions, there's a general understanding that everyone is "biased," in the sense that everyone holds their interpretations to be more accurate to the text at hand. The same approach would be helpful here.
My interpretation does not "reverse" the story. It flows directly out of the narrative of the episode just as it exists, as I explained.
reply share
What a surprise. The "I know you are but what am I?" defense. Throwing the word "ad hominem" around like chaff is just icing on the same old cake.
Doesn't matter. OBIT stands on it's own. It doesn't need my help. Oswald, Dolinsky, Stefano, Stevens, et al did a wonderful job meeting their OWN objectives with this fine episode, and no amount of revisionism is going to change that.
My only goal was to make sure your assertions about the episode did not go unchallenged. I have done that. If you want to accuse me of bias, fine. As long as your own bias is made clear as well, I am satisfied.
And if we've made people go back and watch this episode again, I am more than satisfied.
What a surprise. The "I know you are but what am I?" defense. Throwing the word "ad hominem" around like chaff is just icing on the same old cake.
Like chaff? You were the one who resorted to an ad hominem fallacy, and I identified it as such. I had been quite content to discuss the episode, because it supports my interpretation.
And if we've made people go back and watch this episode again, I am more than satisfied.
Absolutely, because, as I said, the episode as it stands bears out my reading, regardless of how you wish it had been scripted, but wasn't.
reply share
Joseph N Welch never "exposed" "damage" done by HUAC. He acted as counsel for the army in the 1954 so-called Army-McCarthy hearings. These had nothing whatever to do with HUAC.
He was never "Judge Welch" either-he did play one though in the film "Anatomy of a murder"(1959)
McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC, for any who may believe the pervasive myth he was on it, even chairman of it.
McCarthy never "blacklisted" Jeff Corey or anyone else. Nor did HUAC. "McCarthy blacklist" is a factoid.
HUAC was not specifically created, in the 30s, to just counter Soviet communism, it had a much wider remit.
"McCarthy had nothing to do with HUAC, for any who may believe the pervasive myth he was on it, even chairman of it.
McCarthy never "blacklisted" Jeff Corey or anyone else. Nor did HUAC. "McCarthy blacklist" is a factoid.
HUAC was not specifically created, in the 30s, to just counter Soviet communism, it had a much wider remit."
Thank you for stating the facts. McCarthy was a Senator. He had nothing whatsoever to do with the House Un-American Activities committee -- which, as you pointed out, predated the Cold War era, even predating World War II. In the 1930s, HUAC was equally as concerned with domestic pro-Nazi groups like the German-American Bund as it was with Communists.
Senator McCarthy's accusations were directed mainly against the Army and the State Department and had nothing to do with Hollywood.
As for the blacklist, it was created and perpetuated by the entertainment industry itself -- although in a climate that the HUAC investigations certainly helped to foster.
All the universe or nothingness. Which shall it be, Passworthy? Which shall it be?
"Nor were the Soviet Union and Red China the threat that conservative ideology found it necessary to paint them."
It certainly wasn't just conservatives labeling those two countries a threat. One of Kennedy's major themes in the 1960 election was the "missile gap" and how the Republican leadership of Eisenhower had let the Soviet Union build an alleged superiority in ICBM's. More than anyone else, the Democrat LBJ started the Vietnam War.
As for not thinking they weren't a threat. The USSR through satellite dictatorships was occupying Easter Europe, had ICBMs aimed at the U.S., and backed the invasions of Korea, Vietnam and Cuba. We were actually fighting the Red Chinese in the Korean War. I could go on but if you haven't got the point now, more data isn't going to help.
I was referring to "conservative ideology," not to 'conservatives' as you appear to understand it (referring to our current partisan dichotomy; you probably think Obama is a liberal ). Anticommunist ideology had so permeated American culture at that time it had become received wisdom, which almost everyone accepted, and few questioned.
No, they weren't the aggressive threat that Americans imagined. We were, however, certainly a threat to them.
The USSR through satellite dictatorships was occupying Easter Europe, had ICBMs aimed at the U.S., and backed the invasions of Korea, Vietnam and Cuba.
What "invasions of Korea, Vietnam and Cuba"? Neither the USSR nor Red China invaded any of those. We invaded and attacked those countries in an effort to interfere with their self-determination. We were the aggressors.
What about our "satellite dictatorships"?
We were actually fighting the Red Chinese in the Korean War.
Oh, eventually, yes, once our interference on behalf of South Korea forced their intervention on North Korea's behalf. But there was no call for it. We had no business there. Nor in Vietnam.
§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§
reply share
"The wheels of conservativism today are still greased with that same kind of absurd, baseless fear-mongering, with only a change in some of the casted villains, since the communists are no longer around to come out and play. These days it's liberals, socialists, and homosexuals."
What's absurd is your bias and tunnel vision. Do you really think liberals and socialists paint conservatives any different? Republicans labeling "homosexuals"[gays] as villains? I guess you consider not supporting same-sex marriage is an attack.
As for "fear-mongering," check-out the horrors that Democrats tell blacks and Hispanics will happen to them if a Republican is elected.
I guess you consider not supporting same-sex marriage is an attack.
That's because it is. Opposition to gay marriage is a definite attempt to abridge the rights and prerogatives of LGBTs. Anyone who doesn't want a same-sex marriage can simply not have one, and leave it be for those who do. It poses no threat to those who don't.
As for "fear-mongering," check-out the horrors that Democrats tell blacks and Hispanics will happen to them if a Republican is elected.
Blacks and Hispanics already have direct experience as to what happens when Republicans are elected; no one needs to tell them. That's why the majority of them vote Democrat.
The distinction between the parties doesn't mean much though. Not anymore.
§« The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters. »§
reply share
To clarify an issue that seems muddy: Joseph McCarthy was a US Senator who is mainly known (now) for investigating allegations of Communist sympathizers and infiltrators in the US government. The investigations and black-listing of Hollywood figures were done by the HOUSE Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), within the US House of Representatives. McCarthy had no direct connection with HUAC.
No-technically, morally psychologically....the first Hollywood hearings were in 1947 (leading to the jailing of the "Hollywood 10", not for being communists but for contempt of congress), three years before Joe McCarthy had any involvement whatever in the communist issue.
It was all part of the overall anti-Communist frenzy that damaged the lives of too many Americans in the name of freedom, while ironically denying it to those very same Americans. Amazing how so many so-called patriots had so little faith in democracy -- essentially they were saying, "Isn't it great that we have all these civil liberties & freedoms, now let's not ruin things by actually using them." The anti-Communist witch-hunters acted precisely like the enemies they opposed in Russia, and in fact had the same sort of mindset as those who ran the Russian show trials: absolute obedience to authority, toe the party line, crush anyone & anything that dares to question or think differently. If they could have sent dissenters to American gulags, they would have created such places & used them without a second thought.
When I was kid, I wanted to see monsters. As an adult I find the O.B.I.T. episode to be the most frightening TOL episode of all, especially in the present day.
Mr. Corey was a good actor I agree. He was the bad guy who shot his benefactor in True Grit and was Leonard Nimoy's acting coach for a while too I believe. Small world as both of them were in episodes of The Outer Limits.