Take two: Homeland viewers Rachel Shabi and Alex Andreou debate the politics of the hit TV drama series
The debate rages on among Homeland fans. Some find the Emmy-winning TV show to be a tool for US propaganda, others see it as a show willing to take political risks. We asked two of our contributors to debate the issue.
Rachel Shabi
We were gripped by the first series of Homeland, Alex, but didn't you also find it annoying? Leave aside the too-perfect-looking actors, the dummy wife and the wooden script – a greater irritation is that this drama was billed as a nuanced take on the US "war on terror".
Instead, Homeland presents a retuned version of the same unshakeable assurance that, even when things are really complicated, American values are the fairest, the most right and the best. Sure, the series shows US forces doing terrible things: covering up a drone attack that kills civilians in Iraq; trigger-happy in a US mosque, leaving innocents dead there, too. But these are presented as necessary acts in pursuit of far worse crimes. Homeland's core message is that the US means well, but sometimes has to do bad things; while the Arab and/or Muslim enemy doesn't mean well and hence does unfathomably bad things. Not much of a progression really, is it?
Alex Andreou
A piece of storytelling should be judged in its proper historical context. Breakfast at Tiffany's is a beautiful film in many ways. It also contains a grotesquely racist portrayal of an Asian neighbour by Mickey Rooney. I still enjoy the film on the whole, despite cringing with embarrassment at bits. Maybe the objectionable frames even add to its value as a cultural relic; as a reminder of progress. Lillian Hellman's play The Children's Hour was considered risqué, immoral and was banned. Today it seems, in some ways, banal. But there's no doubt that it stretched its audience at the time.
In its proper context – of a US puffed up with righteousness and seized by Islamophobia – I think Homeland is a revolutionary piece of work, merely by having the courage to tell a story from the perspective of two characters who are questioning whether US policy in the Middle East is right. I believe that stretches its target audience in the right ways.
Rachel Shabi
But why wait for hindsight to make the objectionable seem like a "cultural relic", when it is evident in Homeland right now? I'm not sure how a US seized by Islamophobia could be stretched by a plotline in which so many Muslim characters are somehow connected to al-Qaida, and where a US prisoner-of-war converts to Islam and then infiltrates the government, having first attempted a suicide attack.
Characters do question US policy in the Middle East, but they end up validating it. Brody is, after all, personifying a struggle between good and evil: the good bit is the all-American father-hero-soldier; the bad is the convert to Islam and terrorism (what a myth-busting connection, thanks Homeland!) Look at how he gets into this: the good marine sees the son of his captor-turned-saviour, chief terror baddie Abu Nazir, killed in a secret US drone attack in Iraq. Brody's grief and humanity make him want justice. But Abu Nazir was bad long before his son's death and we don't know why. Is this going to crash any stereotypes, really?
Alex Andreou
It seems natural that a spy thriller is populated by characters operating within that world. All western characters are, directly or indirectly, part of the intelligence community, military or government. It would be naive to suggest that the show advances the premise that all westerners are so. Why would the fact that most Middle Eastern characters are also connected to that conflict advance an equivalent premise?
I find compelling complexity in the dramatic structures. We see the story unfold through the eyes of two individuals, neither of whom offers an easy choice. Carrie gives us a reality complicated by mental illness (a splendid portrayal). Contrary to your suggestion, it is Brody's fatherhood, empathy and compassion – in short, his wholesome qualities – which result in his "switching sides".
In last season's finale, I wished desperately for Brody not to go through with the bombing. I was equally desperate for Carrie to be believed and not to undergo ECT. I wanted both characters, on opposite sides of this battle, to be saved.
Rachel Shabi
It's been really interesting to discuss this with you, Alex, and, while we disagree, you've made me think about how others view the series. I find these dramas intriguing for what they can project about a nation's self-image (I like the Israeli original on which Homeland was based, Hatufim, for similar reasons). I'll keep watching Homeland series two, though it's probably still going to be infuriating!
Alex Andreou
In a culture of constant spoon-feeding, I appreciate a series that allows room to think; to disagree. Great drama lives in the vacuum between the lines – the space we fill with our experiences, likes and pet peeves. As a result, we talk about the issues and get a glimpse of each other's perspectives, into the bargain. We end up understanding each other better. Which is almost better than agreeing.