‘In the not-too-distant future…’

For those of us of a certain age and from a certain geographic range, the lyric above was likely heard being sung by a range of voices including Joel Hodgson, Mike Nelson and/or any number of robot associates.  For those outside of that group, the quote is the first lyric to the many iterations of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (KTMA 1988, Comedy Central 1989-1995, Sci-Fi Channel 1996-1999, Netflix 2017-2018 and proprietary streaming 2022, from now MST3K), a series that Foy and Olson (2024) argue was key to the development of ‘riffing’ culture, or making jokes about films that are considered ‘bad.’  Sconce (1995) argues that paracinema elevates ‘bad’ films by challenging the idea that only films relating to elite taste cultures are worthy of critical analysis, something that is foundational to MST3K.  For this blog, I shall focus on how MST3K’s engagement with and subversion of elite cultures is evident in how it engages with Classical history in its eighth series.

For those unfamiliar with MST3K, it begins as an experiment by two ‘mad’ scientists to trap an individual on board the ‘Satellite of Love’ facility initially in orbit and force him to watch bad films until he goes mad.  The initial individual, Joel (Joel Hodgson, also the series co-creator) builds robots to keep him company and the three of them make jokes (‘riffs’) about the film as they watch. In-between parts of the film are host segments in which Joel and the bots either interact with their captors, perform different types of sketches relevant (if only tangentially) to the plot of the film and occasionally read fan letters at the end of the episodes.  In series five, Joel leaves the series and is replaced by Mike Nelson (Michael J Nelson, also the series’ head writer).  Comedy Central cancelled MST3K after series seven but Sci-Fi Channel (later rebranded as Syfy) took over production from series eight, this blog’s focus, through series ten.[i]  One of the changes that Sci-Fi Channel requested was an overarching plotline which would take place throughout the interstitial host segments, in essence asking for greater serialisation from its previously episodic form (Foy and Olson 2024).  For series eight, this began with new series antagonist Pearl (series writer Mary Jo Pehl) swearing vengeance on Mike for causing the death of her son, initial antagonist Dr Clayton Forrester (Trace Beaulieu), despite the fact that she actually killed him.  Over the first sixteen episodes of series eight, Pearl acquires as associates Professor Bobo (Kevin Murphy) from a pseudo-Planet of the Apes future version of Earth and then an advanced alien entity nicknamed Brain Guy (Bill Corbett), whilst also encountering ‘star children’ and mind-controlling/absorbing pods. This engagement with science fiction tropes, often with direct and obvious intertextual references, helps position the series within wider sf media history (cf Geraghty, 2009 on Futurama).  After a trial by the Observers, Brain Guy’s people, in which Mike is (accurately) found guilty of inadvertently destroying several planets, the Satellite of Love and Pearl all escape through a wormhole.  At the end of 8.16, the Satellite finds itself orbiting Earth while Pearl and Brain Guy are on the surface and find themselves in ancient Rome for the remainder of series eight (8.17-8.22).

History is interpreted based upon the cultural norms of those who interpret it; as such, the representation of the past has much more to do with contemporary society than with factual (in)accuracy (Edgerton 2020).  This is certainly the case here in which the Roman couple,  Callipygeas (Murphy) and Flavia (series writer Bridget Jones), are an exaggerated iteration of a sitcom couple which would have been recognisable to the audience as a set of tropes primed for subversion (cf Hobden, 2009 and Keen, 2010 on similar use by Doctor Who).  While engaging with Rome and its perceived cultures is also a staple of science fiction (e.g., multiple episodes of Doctor Who, including its audio material on Big Finish, Star Trek’s ‘Bread and Circuses,’ inter multa alia), in this instance it also serves to both highlight and subvert elements of the interpretation of Roman religion.  Early scholars of Classics, particularly in the Victorian period, tended to derisively consider Roman religion as ‘superstition’ and as illogical and occasionally would argue that Roman elites likely did not actually believe in Roman religion (i.e., they were too sophisticated/intelligent to do so).  This obviously is an expression of perceived-Christian supremacy, which remains pervasive in some (sub)cultures (e.g., complaints over the Paris Olympics’ use of Dionysos, Kelaidis, 2024).   In MST3K, while Callipygeas and Brain Guy become fast friends (as per the sitcom trope), Flavia does not believe Pearl and Brain Guy are gods from the outset.  While this is to some extent played as an exaggerated trope about women automatically being in conflict with each other, I would argue that this subverts the interpretation that religiously observant Romans were incapable of critical thinking.  Flavia is constantly asking for proof that Pearl and Brain Guy are divine, illustrating not blind faith but reasoned thought.  That her husband and the other Romans who occasionally appear ignore this can also be read as either a loose homage to Cassandra, the prophetess who warned against bringing the wooden horse which contained Greeks into the city of Ilium (Troy), as well as referencing the silencing of women’s voices in Roman history.  When Pearl and Brain Guy are eventually proved not to be gods (thanks to Bobo, who eventually appears) and imprisoned, Flavia occasionally comes to taunt them; at this point she becomes a subversion of the ‘evil Augusta (empress)’ trope—ignorin that Flavia is a noblewoman but not imperatrix—as well as connecting with the wider class aspects within the series.

Dean (2011) argues that the series positions itself and the audience simultaneously as part of a sociocultural hegemony and as resisting it; though the various victims of the experiments are working-class, with the exception of Pearl, the other antagonists are middle or upper-class scientists.  Though it is not explicitly stated, Pearl is coded as working- or lower-class based upon her living within a Winnebago (a recreational vehicle or mobile home) and her exaggerated Midwestern accent; she does eventually choose to become a mad scientist bent on taking over the world, but in series eight she has no interest in science or other intellectual pursuits.  While these are certainly stereotypes, they, like the other characters, are so broad that they are clearly intended as subversive.  Because she is a regular character (and, like Mike and the bots, is positioned as absurd and incompetent rather than threatening), the audience would be expected to sympathise with or possibly root for Pearl against Flavia, despite the fact that Flavia is correct that Pearl and Brain Guy are not gods.  More than the diegesis, however, is that a series which prides itself on a Midwestern, DIY aesthetic and mentality (Foy and Olson, 2024) intentionally utilises and subverts perceived-elite Classical culture through both the sitcom tropes expressed through Callipygeas and Flavia as well as through utilising and riffing on the perceived-elite Classics in a series that promotes the non-elite.  If paracinema (affective-)playfully elevates ‘bad’ films to academic attention, then the series uses that fluidity of perceived-sociocultural hierarchy to subvert the academic- and elite-associated Classics by bringing them ‘down’ to the sitcom level that MST3K so lauds.

____________________________________________________________________________

Dr Melissa Beattie is a recovering Classicist who was awarded a PhD in Theatre, Film and TV Studies from Aberystwyth University where she studied Torchwood and national identity through fan/audience research as well as textual analysis. She has published and presented several papers relating to transnational television, audience research and/or national identity. She is currently an assistant professor of liberal arts at Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane, Morocco. She is under contract with Lexington for an academic book on fictitious countries and Palgrave for a book on Canadian crime dramas. She has previously worked at universities in the US, Korea, Pakistan, Armenia, Ethiopia and for a brief time in Cambodia. She can be contacted at tritogeneia@aol.com.

 

FOOTNOTES

[i]     Subsequent series were on streaming platforms and featured Jonah Heston (Jonah Ray) for series eleven and twelve and then multiple hosts for series thirteen.

 

REFERENCES

Edgerton G R (2020) The past is now present onscreen: Television, history, and collective memory. In Wasko J and Meehan ER (eds). A Companion to Television 2nd Ed. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, pp. 79-104.

Foy M and Olson C J (2024) Mystery Science Theater 3000: A Cultural History.  Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Geraghty L (2009) ‘Welcome to the world of tomorrow!’: Animating science fictions of the past and present in Futurama. In Geraghty L (ed). Channeling the Future Essays on Science Fiction and Fantasy Television. Lanham: The Scarecrow Press, pp. 149-166.

Hobden, F (2009) History meets fiction in Doctor Who, ‘The Fires of Pompeii’: A BBC reception of ancient Rome on screen and online. Greece and Rome 56(2): 147-163.

Keen A G (2010) Sideways Pompeii!: The use of a historical period to question the Doctor’s role in history. In Garner R P, Beattie M and McCormack U (eds). Impossible Worlds, Impossible Things: Cultural Perspectives on Doctor Who, Torchwood and The Sarah Jane Adventures. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars, pp. 94-117.

Kelaidis K (2024) Claims that Olympic opening ceremony ‘mocked Christianity’ ignore the long-standing connection between Jesus and Dionysus. The Conversation. (7, August). https://theconversation.com/claims-that-olympic-opening-ceremony-mocked-christianity-ignore-the-long-standing-connection-between-jesus-and-dionysus-236271 (accessed 13/8/24)

Sconce J (1995)  ‘Trashing’ the Academy: Taste, excess, and an emerging politics of cinematic style. Screen 36(4): 371–393.