Once upon a time, Greg Daniels and his writer Mike Schur set out to adapt a show around a stubborn protagonist who lived in his own reality. That was Michael Scott and within six episodes, he was retooled into a more self-aware character. The show instantly became better when the character at its center was more empathic and relatable.
So why do they keep repeating the same mistake. Leslie Knope was
nauseating in the first season of Parks and Recreation before they righted the
shop and General Mark Naird suffers from much the same problem in the inaugural
season of Space Force. Apparently, they haven’t learned their lesson with the
character of Nathan Rutherford. Played
be Ed Helms, he’s a proprietor of a historical museum, a mayor (the kind that
has no actual power), and descendant of a town’s first settler who is obsessed
with his place in history.
He’s seen as a harmless rube until a proposal comes up to move a statue of
Rutherford’s namesake and town founder from a traffic circle where it is
causing traffic accidents. When Nathan attempts to defend his position, he puts
his foot in his mouth and shows an entitlement and privilege large enough to
get him cancelled on an epic scale. Before one thing leads to another, Rutherford
invokes the wrath of the local Native American tribe and gets his family
embroiled in a law suit that tears through the town.
In an age where the country is sharply divided over the issue of whether
any statues of white people should stand at all barring a demanding purity
test, this seems like extremely risky territory to wade in to. It helps that
the wide spectrum of attitudes of a statue (“I think they should make a statue
about my grandmother instead”, “statues are boring”, “it’s a traffic hazard”
etc.) beyond the typical “statues as symbols of hatred” are on display. But it’s
an odd next project for as progressive a show runner as Michael Schur (who does
enlist a Native American show-runner to be fair). I haven’t read any critics’
reviews but I watched the first episode thinking of all the ways that
self-righteous bunch would be waiting to anoint this show with the Scarlett P
(for “problematic”), even if the philosophy of the show hews more towards their
values.
The show initially seems determined to make a strawman out of Rutherford—he’s
exceedingly stubborn and so utterly resistant to change – that he’s basically
what you’d get if Andy Bernard got educated by the Daughters of the Confederacy
instead of Cornell. At the same time, the show is concurrently woke in almost
every aspect outside of Nathan’s blindspot for protecting his heritage. Nathan’s best friend is a Native American
history obsessive and the two bond over shared history and he displays the
appropriate sensitivity to microaggressions and intersectionality. When the two
want to disqualify a white history fair candidate because he’s caught on tape
using a patois, it’s the kind of societal overcorrection I wouldn’t be behind
in real life but it might hit the social justice sweet spot for these viewers.
Similarly, Nathan’s intern/assistant/lackey is a Southeast Asian gay teen who
he has a relationship based on mutual respect to the degree that doing drudge
work for school credit isn’t considered exploitation for a high schooler of any
race.
The problem again, is just the sheer oblivious of Nathan and the lack of character development until, perhaps, the last two episodes of the season.
This series dramatizes several issues like the value and profitability of nostalgia, how different oppressed peoples work together in the present, whether casinos are helpful or hurtful to Native tribes, if grievance is enough currency alone to accomplish objectives and more. These issues can spur thought-provoking conversations only if they involve characters that can be taken seriously.
