Take Two

Must say, I enjoy TZ, but sometimes the episodes just bother me. Today we watched four: the old and new (from the 1980s) versions of both It’s a Good Life and Nightmare at 20,000 Feet. All made me feel extremely uncomfortable! They just have strange characters in strange, unsettling situations.

The premise of It’s a Good Life is that a “monster” controls the people who live in the only city left in the United States/world. They are trapped and forced to “think good things” or face the wrath of a six-year-old boy who can not only hear their thoughts, but also is irrational, easily agitated, and has no qualms about banishing them to “the cornfield.”

My first thought was that the episode really didn’t have a lesson. However, during class discussion, I appreciated hearing that some thought it was a commentary on child-rearing. Left to their own devices, children can cause much destruction; without discipline and guidance (which means not always giving affirmation such as, “That’s a good thing, a real good thing.”), children can’t form a proper view of the world – everything doesn’t revolve around them and not everyone will like them.

The updated version of this episode was rather different. It was much more outlandish – characters were exaggerated and the set was very cartoon-like. Also, Anthony (the boy) was less set on vengeance; he simply wanted to be accepted and for everyone to not be so afraid of him. I appreciated the lesson portrayed in this version though. It seemed to be a more forthright portrayal of the fact that [most] children want, and possibly crave, authority and discipline. It directly showed the teacher/student and parent/child relationship. The guidance provided to children by their adult leaders is certainly indispensible.

Contrary to my change in opinion regarding the lesson of It’s a Good Life, even after class discussion, Nightmare at 20,000 Feet seemed to lack a real prominent message. I found it entertaining that the episode referred to a commonly accepted “joke” of the WWII era – gremlins tampered with planes – but overall, I failed to see a connection to any strong life principle. One student suggested that it was a tale of sacrifice, which I can understand, but it still just seems like a watered-down horror story to me (the 1950’s man-in-furry-gremlin-costume was extremely laughable). I also severely disliked the new version. The film angles were annoying, John Lithgow acted way too crazily, the characters were much too exaggerated, and the behavior of the flight staff was a little ridiculous (flight attendants are not that touchy and definitely would not give out sedatives).

However, I’d like to pull some sort of value from these episodes though, so I suppose I agree with the tale-of-sacrifice theory. I will also throw in my own idea that it portrayed the importance of sticking to one’s convictions. Both William Shatner and John Lithgow were convinced of their ideas and really wanted to save their planes from crashing. Just because the other passengers didn’t see the problem didn’t mean it didn’t exist. As a Christian, I readily identify with these two characters because in our world today, people oftentimes don’t see a problem with sin, even though it leads to destruction. In the world’s eyes I may look like a crazy person for pursuing a relationship with an “invisible” God, but to be saved (and to help save others) I need to stick to my convictions.

Theology from The Twilight Zone. Ha.