In a fierce rebuke to the arts of storytelling and television, CBS decided to renew Criminal Minds: Beyonds Borders, one of the worst shows – both ethically and artistically – in recent memory. CM:BB is a spin-off from the veteran Criminal Minds franchise. Except instead of the F.B.I. doing psychological profiling (and, like most psychologists, getting involved in tons of shootouts) inside the U.S., CM:BB looses the F.B.I. profilers upon the world.
In a previous post I examined the show’s first two episodes and the fundamental problem with the idea that the U.S.’s sovereign violence – its monopoly on legitimate force as embodied in this instance by the F.B.I. – should follow U.S. citizens into other sovereignties. Already evidenced in the first episodes were the baselines of the parent franchise, ableism and pathologizing neuroatypicality. CM:BB adds to this by projecting these onto Othered populations. It takes a colonial anthropological look at exotified populations with a proclaimed Cultural Expert (Alana de la Garza) who mostly stands in for ‘native informants’ (which in this series has two meanings, the anthropological and the turning of snitches, though these are not necessarily distinct positions). The othering is accomplished in part through recurring native incompetence where all things procedural and properly logical must be explained by the F.B.I. to native investigators and where native cultural practice has boundaries of propriety also defined by the F.B.I. All of this is offered through a cast with middling chemistry and scripts so bad as to be unintentionally comedic at times, leading to impressive guffaws-per-minute rates.
Between the first two episodes and now CM:BB has shown the following:
Egyptian terrorist uses a cobra to attack gay Americans.
Justice against an Afrikaner torturer from the juridical apartheid era is achieved through proving he killed a white cop while the ‘truth and reconciliation’ program forgives his actual apartheid crimes.
A stand-in for ISIS seduces a white U.S. teenager into traveling to Turkey where they kidnap and brainwash her into carrying out a suicide bombing.
A French serial killer is murderously romantic while smoking cigarettes and drinking wine.
The latest episode, “The Ballad of Nick and Nat”, is arguably the worst. The episode opens with some stock salsa music playing in a bar where a non-Cuban white American girl meets a non-white Cuban-American guy whom she seduces then kills. The F.B.I. is called in to investigate the guy’s death.
They identify problems before even arriving as Simmons (Daniel Henney) lets the teams know that Cuba’s “technology is at least fifty years behind”. This leads into a brief discussion of the old cars prevalent on Cuban streets, what Jarvis (Annie Funke) calls one of “Cuba’s biggest natural resources”. Team leader Garret (Gary Sinise) chimes in saying, “So, our [suspect] is on the move in a country that can’t keep up”. Cue the white U.S. suspect seeing a U.S. flag on the wall of a shop where she has gone to buy a Che Guevara tank top. She kills the storeowner for having a U.S. flag.
The F.B.I. is frustrated at first by – as with all episodes to date – native incompetence. They eventually figure out that the killers are following a route made famous by El Che and staging symbolic representations of Che quotes. I wrote that sentence coherently. How it is done in the show is totally incoherent and extremely funny. For folks who have even a very basic grasp on the Cuban Revolution it will be funnier still.
The show then moves into a discussion of communism and Che Guevara that has all the nuance of a House of Unamerican Activities Committee hearing. Garret says about views of Che as heroic and revolutionary, “That’s one of the great propaganda campaigns of all time, turning Castro’s thug into a hero. The man responsible for torturing and killing thousands of innocent civilians under the cover of, ‘the revolution.’ Cubans are still terrified to speak out against them.” Cultural Expert responds knowingly, “The Butcher of La Cabaña [pronounced in the show ‘Cabana’], and our [suspect’s] inspiration.”
The suspect keeps quoting Che in ways intended to tie her to a madness that is also Che’s, and to prsent both her and him as irrationally violent. For example, some U.S. dude calls Che a “narcissistic psychopath” and tells his buddy, “Let’s get a mojito.” The killer looks into her partner’s eyes with divine inspiration and quotes Che, “If you tremble with indignation at every injustice, then you are a comrade of mine.” Dude becomes a corpse shortly thereafter.
At this point the comedy is set aside so the show can get on with its primary purpose, which is to define women exclusively through gendered violence. The police find out that the killer was raped as a child and then again shortly before she started killing. The killer alternates between screaming Che quotes and nonsensical utterances intended to illustrate her victimization. The woman’s political critique is presented as a symptom of her rape. Her love for Che and concern about U.S. imperialism are all because her step-father raped her and nobody listened, not because U.S. imperialism is a bad thing—and of course no stable person would be moved to question imperailism. The F.B.I. shows up and tells the killer that they’re “listening to her” which solves everything for her and she’s ready to stop killing but her partner isn’t so they both die anyway.
Everything about this is wrong and vile. It takes the actual fact that raped victims are ignored and establishes them as violent actors rather than people upon whom violence is enacted. The killer embraces Che not because she is working class and so has legitimate grievances with the status quo, but because she was raped twice and is therefore, necessarily, by the show’s logic, insane. The killer has no politics nor identity, she is a purely physical being comprised of reactions to rape trauma. Victims of sexual violence and victims of U.S. imperialism are alike incomprehensible, dangerous and erratic. It’s up to the F.B.I. to impose order, reason, and the justice of death.
I only occasionally watch this show, but I saw this episode. It seemed a lot of the time like a piece of anti-communist propaganda. It reminded me of these comic books I looked at as a kid, that were supposedly The Archies, but always ended up preaching about the evils of communism. (I was so frustrated–I wanted to read about Archie, Betty, and Veronica, not how communism was bad).
The point about defining the killer with gendered violence, while completely dismissing any political ideology, is important and it happens too often–she doesn’t have a legitimate grievance or way of thinking, she’s just crazed from rape trauma. Interesting article!
Glad you like the article! And agree about the propaganda part. Makes me wonder who it’s for though. It’s so ham-fisted that I’m not sure anyone who didn’t grow up immersed in (and convinced by) Cold War propaganda would find it plausible.
I sort of feel bad for Gary Sinise. This is the only work he can get now?
Why feel bad? Maybe he needs to pay off his third holiday home or something. I’m sure he gets paid a shit ton. Might be as much as when he worked on that other shitty procedural – CSI NY. Especially since the thing has been renewed for another season.
A trip to IMDB shows he hasn’t done anything not cop or military related for a decade. Which fits with his politics so it could be by choice.
Wow, okay, well, maybe he’s living the dream…
This is why your argument holds as much water as a cup with holes in it. The FBI are an elite law enforcement entity. In countless television shows and movies, the FBI take over cases from local investigators. Countless shows, mind you.
The only reason you have a problem with it now is because this show happens overseas and members of *foreign* law enforcement look less competent. But everyone is less competent compared to elite trained units, American local law enforcement included.
You are the same individual who never wants to suggest a foreigner could enact a crime against a tourist. Do you complain about the portrayal of crime in America as propagated by the original Criminal Minds? No, it’s only the perception of foreign crime that bugs you.
Crime exists overseas, just like America. Incompetent law enforcement exists overseas, just like America. It’s not a zero sum suggestion that foreigners are bad. You’ve made that up in your head.
This show is designed for people who like to see close-ended crimes solved by elite units of law enforcement. It’s that simple. It is not a show that promotes any sort of racism. Whether or not you like the content – which you’re entirely entitled not to like btw – doesn’t factor into your argument.
But if you think the show is bad, write one! Don’t sit back behind a cushy computer and take pot shots, get yours on air. Get 6 million or so viewers every week. Surely it can’t be that hard to do. Yours will be better. But it’s a little spineless isn’t it, to criticize the work without being willing to put yourself out there in the same fashion?
O HAI Frank! I dislike the original franchise most times though have not yet essayed on it. That much is clear when I wrote, “the baselines of the parent franchise, ableism and pathologizing neuroatypicality.” The original franchise though has generally good cast chemistry at a minimum so even though it is a politically horrible show it is only unwatchable at times and at its best, is quite entertaining, especially those episodes that play as horror more than procedural.
In the episode in question the killers are not “foreigners” from the FBI’s perspective, they are US citizens so it’s not clear what you’re referring to. Anybody can cause harm and I didn’t suggest otherwise. Further there is a fundamental difference between agencies of sovereign violence taking over an investigation from a lower ranking agency of the same sovereignty and subverting a foreign sovereignty through ending its monopoly of legitimate violence. This is a narrative of imperial power more than the carceral state like the parent franchise. Also using the term “elite” for ham-fisted pop psychology, bizarre logic leaps and pseudo-analysis that real investigators would laugh at is a stretch that would impress Reed Richards.
The last part of your comment is just silly posturing that dismisses criticism as a field. It’s like saying, “Create or consume, don’t analyze.”
Waitaminute, this thing is only getting 6 million viewers now? Now that I’ve checked, I see that the latest number is 5.94. There’s hope yet for American Civilization! The team at CM:BB should just cut their losses and make some romance dramas like the S. Koreans instead – they would probably get more viewers.
Ah, yes, but it’s only imperialistic if Americans do it! Rush Hour for example wouldn’t be imperialistic, even though Jackie Chan infringed upon our sovereignty. What about Red Heat with the former governor of California? Did you have the same gauzy argument for Taken, with Liam Neeson? Nope.
You’re using a television show which has showed numerous instances of international cooperation and appreciation of culture (and boon for minority employment no less) to further your anti-American agenda and rhetoric, and this is coming from someone who does not endorse American exceptionalism, far from it. But your argument is a fiction, a narrative you have so proudly constructed and so remarkably hypocritical considering you call the show a shit-blizzard, was it? Is that an analytical term? Or the term of a lukewarm pseudo-intellectual?
Posturing? JJ, I’m not dismissing criticism as a field. I’m dismissing *your* criticism. You play at being analytical but it’s patter, it’s noise, it’s the cruft that is so readily deleted – because *your* argument isn’t sound, even if you’re too obtuse to register it.
Yawn. Said nothing about any U.S. monopoly on imperialism which wasn’t true even at the peak of U.S. empire. Red Heat and the Rush Hour films and show are about cooperation of peers, not heirarchies of power and the Taken films are about vigilante action so are irrelevant entirely. CM:BB is about subordinating othered sovereignties as is super obvious if you watch the show (Have you? From your earlier comment it seems clear you hadn’t watched the episode in question). This is made clear in the first episode when Garret says, “It’s not their job to worry about missing Americans. It’s ours.” The portrayal is one where the U.S. has sovereignty over U.S. citizens no matter in what sovereignty that is located. This is heirarchic, not cooperative.
Racism is not an “appreciation of culture”. The portrayals are simplistic, decontextualized, nonsensical, bizarre and condescending in most examples. The othering is ferocious. Who knew that white supremacy was a “boon to minority employment”?
And sure I’m anti-American and proud to be so (if by that you mean “anti-U.S. policies” and not, say, “anti-Ursula K Le Guin” or “anti-folk music”, it’s a very silly, vacuous phrase). But that has nothing to do with whether what I offered was accurate or not.
Shit-blizzard is the kindest thing I could think to write about CM:BB. It’s a really terrible show. You’re conflating intellectual content with tone. “Shit-blizzard” is crude. And appropriate. Thanks for clarifying that you were only dismissing my criticism with your argument against all criticism. Good to know.
Well there it is. You’ve admitted your bias. You’re proud of your bias. You’re just unaware you’re incapable of seeing without your bias. The show is a vehicle for your bias toward U.S. policy, not a reflection of the show’s content. There are many instances over the course of the season where the police of other sovereignties are helpful and their help is acknowledged.
You think the show is terrible, got it. Not that all television run by white supremacists is terrible, just this particular show that you’ve cherry-picked because you like the taste of low-hanging fruit.
If shit-blizzard is the best you can think of, then hey, it’s the best. Those student loans were worth it. But I can say unequivocally – and critically – that there is one thing the television show isn’t that you are: a fraud.
Remember, yawns are contagious. Feel free to have the last word. Maybe you can come up with something north of vapid.
@Frank
Well, when you say “I’m not an American exceptionalist!” and “You’re anti-American!” in damn near the same sentence, it has the same rhetorical ring to it as the phrase, “I’m not racist, and you hate white people!”
I have to admit, I was not expecting an impassioned defense of this obscure piece of crap show. Nor of the FBI. “Elite units are elite!” Suuuurrre. The Federal government is totally without question always competent, and suggesting otherwise is anti american.
Frank, if you don’t like the criticism, maybe you should go to your on website and write your own criticism, rather than sitting smugly behind your keyboard and churning out irate comments. I’m not dismissing commenting as a field, understand; just your comments.
“there is one thing the television show isn’t that you are: a fraud. ”
Hah, I’ve seen everything now. An argument for the superior authenticity of a totally, transparently unrealistic bottom-dwelling half-assed TV crime drama. “It’s real…because it’s American!”
I kind of can’t believe you’re a real person, Frank. You’ve got no last name…this whole thing is just a joke, right? You’re performance art?
Peter, I’m not anti-American or exceptionalist. I don’t adhere to either, I examine and scrutinize policy. I’m terrified of what’s potentially to come with our election, so no, not exceptional. Not even close. I’m not even making a statement about the quality of the show. Network in general is fast or at best comfort food. This we know, that’s no big revelation. I’m simply saying the author’s argument is not rooted in fact. It’s his own silly narrative, constructed out of anti-American sentiment and I understand a lot of that sentiment, I can empathize with that but not with a argument based on furthering an agenda, rather than having a real argument. An argument would illustrate the instances where the team were working in tandem with the locals and had the same, collective goals. Which in many episodes they do. Stop cherry-picking the negative stuff to push your agenda. It’s horseshit.
In terms of the show’s place in reality, yes it’s a real show that employs real people with real families that make a living. It has a very high rate of minority employment compared to what is currently on television. All of those minorities are privy to the scripts and could certainty say no based on the content but they don’t because unlike the author, they aren’t on the sidelines calling foul. And they don’t have his bias. They aren’t seeing it through his lens. The show is real in those terms. It’s not a contrived play from a baseless poser of a critic.
And yes Noah, consider me performance art. Like this blogger. Glad you’ve seen everything. You’ve also commented twice to someone who wasn’t talking to you. If you’re uncomfortable because an adult is talking, oh well.
Frank I did exactly nothing to hide my bias and my bias doesn’t make the critique wrong, only described in terms different than imperialist critics (see here for example https://www.commonsensemedia.org/tv-reviews/criminal-minds-beyond-borders where the critic also calls it boring and corny but doesn’t question the politics – the only spot we disagree on is the cast chemistry which to me feels contrived and clumsy, unlike the parent franchise or the earlier spin-off that has great chemistry). My “lens” is one that opposes racism and imperialism. That’s a good lens to have.
What you called “working in tandem” on the show starts with the FBI showing the locals that they are wrong and then establishing a hierarchy of knowledge and technique. There are a couple of only partial exceptions to this but even in episodes like “Harvested”, when Garret greets a local colleague the colleague says the locals don’t know shit and he needs help civilizing them. It is condescending, like your comments. Which is weird because you’ve not responded to any I wrote so much as misinterpreted thing en toto while pretending I said things I didn’t because shit flew over your head.
“All of those minorities”…yeah, so your bias is also evident. And of course I’m on the sidelines! lol! Are you offering me a job on the show? By your comments I dare say you’re in a place to do so.
Oh and I just changed my job title on facebook to “baseless poseur of a critic.” So thanks for that!
Look, at the end of the day, sparring what you’re sparring against is a good thing. That I would freely admit. But if you’re going to fight against racism and imperialism, don’t pick soft targets. There are much more significant ones than an otherwise insignificant, and more importantly, culturally insignificant show that in all probability won’t see a 3rd season. You have a problem with these things in society, and you should. But, reality check. You are no Noam Chomsky. Listen to me for a second, don’t just wait to respond. You are not him. He is actually smart, not thesaurus smart. And he is not frivolously wasting his time picking at a marginal tv show with an unsound argument. the hypocrisy and lunacy of it is that your blog, you, are the shit-blizzard. Your DNA is made of it. You are so full of shit lol, that it’s what I find so amusing. It’s like the other posters come here to defend you because of your chic hipster presentation.
And every time someone like you comes out from whatever hole you do, you actually create a culture of division, because you define the boy who cried wolf.
America has serious problems. This show is your vehicle for fighting them. Think JJ. You’re just being more than a little douchey.
Your comment about me is very telling though in regards to how much you think you know. I would have expected lady with twelve cats, troll or man who lives in his mom’s basement. But your deductive reasoning impresses. People who are affiliated with shows generally don’t address the chatter of an insignificant blogger who desperately wants validation. But I will just come out and say it. I owe you as much.
I am, in fact, Les Moonves. You got me JJ. And yes, there is always an opening for fluffers. Please put that on your “facebook page” too, which I’m glad I could help with. Facebook page lol. Jesus. You are some journalist. I will guarantee my presence here has been the most interesting thing this blog will ever offer, and that’s not saying much. Carry on.
Frank, if the issue is picking worthwhile targets, what are you doing here? This is a tiny blog with a small blog post about an obscure television show. Shouldn’t you be doing something more worthwhile, like commenting on a bigger blog about a bigger television show?
Jimmy watched the show. Other folks watch the show. He thought it had something to say, so he talked about it. You had something to say in response too, however silly and confused, and here you are. Folks talk about things they’re interested in…and often they may also talk about other things too!
@Frank: Your superior intelligence is lost on JJ. Which, by the way, requires me to condemn you to douche-status. How dare you stoop so low as to engage this shit-blizzard of a blogger in a discussion! You see the world clearly. You read between his lines. And yet you stoop to point out his failings. Does a giraffe look down and complain about how a snail does its business? Of course not! Get off this comment board and go back to doing something useful before your hypocrisy becomes evident, you brainiac!
Why am I here? Truthfully, just a little fun. It’s fun to rattle the cage a bit. I enjoy lurking around blogs, I do. And people who present vacuous arguments tend to get the sharp end. I don’t really like lukewarm mental bullies, pseudo-braniacs that the think access to thesaurus.com makes them an intellect. So it’s fun to push back a bit. Because JJ needs to understand he’s really in a kiddy pool and being overly sensitive because his floaties are strapped too tight. There are people manhandled in America by cops and this is your focus. Okay. Women with acid thrown on their face. This is your focus, a show? Okay. But you’re not the SJW you present yourself to be. It’s a fucking tv show on an ailing network lol. And he, JJ, is as much a real critic as lip filler is to real lips. Why are you kissing his ass?
The irony of course being that he’s talking about a very masculine chest puffed pro-America show. I have my problems with America too. But look, the critic should be able to take critique on his own content no? His content sucks, it sucks. Crude, yes. But I am not an intellectual, not even close. But I don’t try to look like one either. When you act like a horse’s ass, and someone calls you out for it, own it. Why am I here? I dunno. Just fucking around with my Saturday. Maybe JJ will review this one day and try, just try to see my point, once he has some distance to think about it. But he blew off my argument very quickly, accused me of whatever, simply because his blog is a digital straw man.
Look dude, what happened in Paris, and not just Paris, but Boston, everywhere, people need to see shows where the perceived “good guys” win. They need it. It’s hope. False hope? Maybe, sure. Whatever. It’s something. Should the FBI be the good guys of the FBI show? No, you say. The local cops should be. That’s not a show. That’s the musings of narrow mind.
Now if the critique was framed – here are the things this show could do to improve – and let’s face it, far from perfect content, I get that. Who cares? Perfection = illusion. If the critique was framed, here’s how it (said entity) can improve, then it’s inclusive, and JJ is no longer a hypocrite. I mean what the fuck is so hard to understand about that lol? And why do you care about me anyway? I’m performance art. Plus, really, isn’t JJ capable of defending himself? Or does he need you Noah? Stop being so dramatic. Get off JJ’s internet penis.
Frank, I’m not defending Jimmy, who needs no defending. I’m posting comments on my own blog in response to one of the more ridiculous trolls I’ve ever encountered. But sure, fight the power, rattle the cage. Tell Gary Sinise we said hi.
Haha, well, you’re certainly allowed to post on your own blog Noah, don’t let me stop you. You have fuck all to do with the conversation but sure, why not? I actually didn’t realize I was talking to JJ’s boss, but now the hand-holding makes sense. Sorry if my little heckle touched a nerve. For sure, I’ll certainly pass the message to Gary. I would like to add, I do like the shit-with-eyeballs banner art. It fits. ;)
@Frank
Say hi to Breitbart and Coulter too! Tell them I miss them. I’m so glad to run in to you here at this blog. Lol. Can’t believe you’re still talking to these fools. Listen, Zimmerman needs some support. Can you go back to HuffPo and troll over there for a while? Don’t forget to hit the Target articles too! Lol. Peace!
I’m not anyone’s boss; it’s a little volunteer group blog where people post because they feel like it. You only “touched a nerve” in the sense that smelling something foul makes people comment, “that’s foul.”
You know I’ve been asked more than once here to leave so I will abide those wishes, but let me just say something before I go and then you guys can have at it about what a lune troll I am. I guess I deserve that, fine. Sure. First, Inigo, you’re a dipshit. I’m not even close to a conservative, the argument is above your head. Secondly, you know better than to feed the troll. If that’s what I am to you, fine. It wasn’t intentional.
Now let me explain something to you morons, since you guys are so perplexed. I’m local 399. If you don’t know what that it, google it. We lose productions to other states constantly because our state isn’t offering the same tax incentives. And when I come across a horseshit article like this, that in the off chance could inform a show’s existence and therefore, the welfare of families working in CA, and yes, many minority families, I find it to be bullshit if the argument isn’t sound. So you got called out because you are pretty much clueless and irresponsible, because big things have small beginnings. There are things at play in terms of employment which probably don’t mean much to you. They should. Goes back to that cherry-picking argument I was making. That’s why I framed my argument as, if you want a show to improve, there’s an approach that could satisfy all parties. But I probably don’t mean sh-t to you guys ultimately, so oh well. It was fun.
Have fun with your blog.
Frank you are one weird troll. You barely make arguments and don’t address facts/frameworks presented in opposition, merely shift positions and vacillate (thanks thesaurus.com for such a great word!) between anti-intellectual (why dedicate thought to a shitty little show which, weirdly, you also claim to be major) and claims of insufficiently rigorous intellectual approach.
CM:BB is inherently regressive. I don’t want the show to get better. I hope it goes off the air as soon as possible. Yes that means some people will be out of work (like me, being the union guy you are you may have heard of the weak job market here in Detroit for blue collar workers with no college education but hey, please go on with being condescending about my mythical college loans and the threat to labor, there’s a reason I have time to watch shitty television shows). Jobs that are premised on something racist and nationalist are a part of labor struggle only after their role in racism and nationalism. It’s like the imperial unionism of arms factories where workers struggle for fair wages to produce death for workers elsewhere. Except with regressive cultural production like CM:BB the effect is discursive, playing a role in creating a discourse that allows for U.S. attacks abroad (minor in this case to be sure because the show is new and has a relatively limited audience for a national broadcast). Further, CM:BB is a racist show. Providing jobs for non-white people in the context of racist discourse is not a blow against racism. You can’t fight racism with racism. Your argument is empty.
And last, what cage? What do you think you have rattled?
Trolling aside, Jimmy, there’s a lot of good lines in here. You do deadpan well. I especially liked “Egyptian terrorist etc.” and “At this point the comedy is set aside”. I’m laughing just typing that last one out, so thanks for the lols.
is frank really saying he’s fighting the good fight in comments sections on a random blog in order to protect Gary Sinise’s job?
the internet is truly a strange place.
This show is shockingly bad ,I was truly gobsmacked to hear the dialogues about che Guevara and the general tone of the show. I will not bother repeating the most toe curling declarations delivered as if everybody knew they were true, but seen that many years have passed since the Cuban revolution etc…I was expecting a slightly more balanced approach even for a show as blatantly proamerican as this. Anyway I obviously agree with JJ Critique and Frank……! really? Yes my cage got rattled a bit, I always like to hope that people will wake up eventually, but …
The person who did the research for this episode didn’t dig very deep. Not only is there no American ambassador to Cuba (there is still only an interim ‘chargé d’Affaires’ despite the establishment of diplomatic relations occurring over two years ago), the embassy never had to “be under construction” because it’s the old American Interests Section… the comment about the firing squad was the last straw for me on this episode and it was only about 6 minutes in. Cuba has capital punishment, but the last time anyone was executed was 2003. Never mind the “Americans are here to save the day” narrative, the portrayal of basic facts about the country is just wrong.