Frank Black: Role Model or Not?

[Bardo Thodol]

I thought it appropriate that this post go in this "little known, seldom used" forum, because I think Lance had a lot to do with the way the character was played and what kind of man he was.

Do you see Frank as a role model, or as an anti-role model (someone who's behavior should be used as an example of how not to live)?  Please list your examples, either way.

Scott

(Now... how's that for a topic!)

[Raven Wolf]

First off, I must say this is an excellent topic!

Now, I'll start by saying that Frank is one of my most important role models.....And, my admiration for his caracter is what led me to so desperatly seek out this group!  (which was, by the way, the very first thing I ever did on the internet!)  There was so much strenghth and nobility to his caracter.  He is a man of deep morals, great wisdom, and unwavering courage.  A true RENASSANCE MAN.  His devotion to his family, to the fight against evil, and to the preservation of his own integrety, makes him an excellent role model in todays world.  I think we could all learn a lot from Frank Black.

[Guest David Marx]

To see Frank portrayed as a hero was something I needed. Why, you may ask? Flawed but admirable anti-heros are common as dirt, but a genuinely good man who has flaws is rarely depicted in fiction.  Too often, the flawed hero is a whiny, ineffectual loser like (worst example I can think of) Thomas Covenant of “Lord Foul’s Bane” fame.  Let me do a short list of the shitty things that Frank is at least half responsible for bringing upon himself:

1) His first, pre-show breakdown.

2) He misrepresents the safety of his family to himself and others on multiple occasions, endangering their lives on numerous occasions.

3) His empathy toward Jim Horn (Dead Letters, MLM-102) is counter-productive for both men, and almost destroys Jim and the case.

4) Even after killing the Polaroid Stalker (The Beginning and the End, MLM-201,) Frank continues to resort to violence as a solution on numerous occasions where it is not the only recourse, the most dramatic example being when he smashes his way into Peter Watts’ house.

5) Probably due to his own feelings of guilt, he is far too passive in his relationship with Catherine.  For example, most of the boundaries set are by Catherine, and he doesn’t even discuss them with her.  The scene in “Sense and Antisense (MLM-203) when he tells Peter,

         

“The situation with Catherine has created new responsibilities. I’ve got two of everything. Two sets of toys, two rentals and a house.”

I get the feeling that he hasn’t explained any of this to Catherine.  In fact, I would argue that the speed at which he moved to ‘fix the problem’ would preclude any intelligent discussion of how the separation would affect finances.

I could go on and on, but I think you get my point.  Frank makes mistakes and is more often punished for them than not.  He’s gone over the edge and had to claw his way back.  

Yet there is no doubt in my mind that Frank is a good, strong, powerful, admirable man.  A man to emulate in almost every way.

This dichotomy is illustrated best (to me, anyway) in Walkabout (MLM-115.)  Frank’s frustration with his life and his potential legacy leads him into deception (again!) toward friends, family and strangers.  While his involvement is ultimately a win situation for the common good, his perseverance is partially responsible for the death of two people during the course of his investigation.  But – and I don’t feel like I’m alone in this – at no time do I think he isn’t doing better than most would, faced with similar situations.

Other sources of fiction have touched me, affected me, and changed me.  But Millennium, warts and all, is the only work of fiction that has guided me.

Having Frank come on, night after night, right when I walked in the door after struggling through another day of my shitty job, and show me that a guy with far more problems than I will ever have (knock on wood) wasn’t giving up – well, that’s the most educational TV I have ever watched.  

p.s. sorry for the long absence! I'm back!

[Raven Wolf]

And, what a grand comeback you made!

That was fabulous!  What an incredible, & thorough description that was, David!  You brought up the other parts of Franks caracter that were so inspirational to me, that I haddn't had time to get to, yet.  Yes, he had his flaws, which makes him an even better role model, because he's more "down to earth", more human.  Which makes it seem more possible to live up to his example.  You follow your gut instincts, you win, you loose, you pick up and move on.  You NEVER give up!!!

[Guest Wellington]

Hi

I would not know if I could call Frank a role model. His uniqueness comes from the fact he is a father, husband, citizen, on a recurrent basis. Such characters are often one offs, misused and quickly forgotten because they tend to become expendable. But on the other hand, there are lots of stereotypes in him. He is the embodiment of a modern justice. That is not Knight Rider, but nonetheless a kind of Mr Good vs Evils. Nothing new in it.

More than that, there are a lot of failures in him: his marriage, his job, his reputation, his own morals. Those are human failures, seen everyday everywhere, but I wish I will be wiser and not live them. So maybe he finally is a role model as a counter-example of what I desperately want to avoid! I am sure he did not want it to happen to him neither, and if (that is a big if) his righteous mind was what lead him to those failures, then we have a nice specimen of man who does not know when to stop, who does not know when to question himself and put things in perspective.

Now, what could I admire in him? His knowledge, his discretion, his love for Jordan, his availability. For what is left, I truly wish I can do better! But there is no doubt I will delete this reply as soon as my Angel has left me, my job broken me and my peers looked down on me...

Regards

[Guest PROVO_SIX]

Modesty -- Frank, the character, demonstrates extreme modesty not only in his skills and experience, but in the life-style he (maybe Catherine) choses.  The Group, as was frequently mentioned, apparently pays pretty well.  Peter has this stoic, modest nature as well.  I really like them together as characters.

I will not knock Frank for misguided acts of compassion or violent tendencies. If you only knew, his capacity pales in comparrisson to what many, MANY, are capable of in the realm of physical violence. Violent?  Hell no... Pissed-off?  Sure, on occasions. Frank can be a bit too pacifistic, to me, so let's keep this notion in perspective.

HOWEVER!  His passive relationship with Catherine has made me talk back to the TV telling Catherine to "ah shaddup." Frank squirms everytime his pager goes-off.  I can't blame him too much for that either.  But what are your options?  Do you pull a Provo and explain to Catherine about their relationship whoes, " 'when flesh is rotten, hack it off.' So, on that note, I'm outta here!?"  

IMHO -- you kick-ass and take names on the streets, but when you come home, it is holy ground (Highlander ref here...hehe.) You select a wife to be a trusted partner, until she forces her way out of the "circle of trust."

~Chris

[Guest 19:19]

franks killing of the polaroid stalker was completely justified, i never understood why Katherine had him leave, i can agree for the reasons why he did it and i am sure most people would have done the same.

19:19

[Guest LauraKrycek]

franks killing of the polaroid stalker was completely justified, i never understood why Katherine had him leave, i can agree for the reasons why he did it and i am sure most people would have done the same.

I, too, think that Frank's actions against the Polaroid Stalker were completely justified.  I mean, first off, we know that the man's prone to psychological breakdowns.  She knows better than anyone.  I think Frank's in shock through a lot of this episode, just trying to get her back at any cost.  And when he finally finds her and the man who took her and tortured her (that being a big thing in it, I'm sure), he suddenly snaps.  He can't help what he does; it's one of those primal things.

In Catherine's defense, though, she has just been through quite an emotional and physical ordeal.  She thinks that her daughter is lying dead a few feet from her.  Her world has been ripped out from under her.  And then Frank comes in to save her and brutally murders her attacker.  Yes, she knows now that her family is safe and that she will be all right, but she has just witnessed her husband committing this harsh, rash act that she herself never knew that he was capable of.  She knew he had passion, yes, but not a brutal one.  After everything she's gone through, I think she just needed time to regain some sense of sanity and stability.

I absolutely love season 2, so I relate to the characters and justify their actions.  I think the storylines were excellent, and Frank and Catherine's separation allowed for things that could not have happened otherwise.  He was taken out of that safe, home-and-family setting and forced to be alone and evaluate himself and his connections with the Group.  Where before, he had Catherine and Jordan to ground him and make him see the path that he needed to stay on to save himself and them, when they were gone, he was vulnerable to be bombarded by these images of fear and hate with no blinders to keep him trudging ahead.  It was a necessary thing, in the greater arc of Millennium, to have her ask to have time apart.  It breaks my heart, but imagine what would've been different, had they not separated.

I just love Millennium so much.  You have no idea.  Talking about it like this makes me all fired-up and wanting to watch all the episodes again.  Stupid college... I should just drop out and watch MM all day every day.

[Guest Wellington]

Hi

franks killing of the polaroid stalker was completely justified, i never understood why Katherine had him leave, i can agree for the reasons why he did it and i am sure most people would have done the same.

It is very hard to tell, and I ask myself so many times if it can be justified. I have no doubt almost anyone would snap the last rope of sanity left after abduction/torture of the loved one. It may not be the right thing to do, but then you have to drop the hormon levels and you do not care hitting first and thinking later. But that is one of the reasons I never left something potentialy harmful out of place. Just in case I snap it myself for whatever motive. Hormons rush fast and in the blink of an eye (time needed to fetch something) you may gain the time to put the hands down. But in the blink of an eye you can also thrust a blade somewhere you will regret for a long time. The less in reach, the safer.

I do not think some murders are better than others. There can be no rating for that. It is a question of point of view. Frank is the goog guy for every watcher, but would be the evil guy for the stalker's family. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and vice versa. Frank did bad, and so bad he did not even do good to himself, nor his family. Frank lost himself 100% for Catherine and I understand that. Were I Frank then, I would be afraid of myself, very afraid.

Now, on a personal basis, killing the stalker has lifted a burden he had on for much too long. But to make things square, I would also have killed the first MM member I would come across (probably Watts) for letting that happen. Frank did probably not exert his vengeance on the right person. I do not think he suffered more from the stalker than from the Group's hiding things.

This murder is a great characteristic of Frank, but it is a pity the scripts did not show the work of this stain on his soul more than what we saw.

Regards

[Guest PROVO_SIX]

I would like to courteously disagree with your posture regarding the severity of the killing incident.  There is no other recourse when defending yourself in such a blatantly hostile environment.  There is a history of psychological adversity, with said stalker, and his wife was clearly in imminent danger.  Lights flash, stalker lunges.... come on folks...the reaction is quite expected.

The action, Polaroid Stalker attacking Frank with a deadly weapon, was met by reaction of the fight/flight instinct.  After gaining the upperhand, outright rage and anger resulted in a temporary insanity, a situation to the degree most of us have never ever faced.

To kill, in the name of defense... You try to tell yourself that there are not any degrees of murder (noble and quite civilized).  Every European legal system has "intent" and "circumstances" as mitigating or exacerbating factors to degrees of guilt.  Malice afore thought=First Degree Murder or Greatest Bodily Harm.  In a court of law Frank would be cleared of all charges, never facing penalty for a justified homicide.  

I would have done worse.  Don't mess with my family and never...don't ever attempt to terrorise me.  Sorry...