Dallas: What It Had And What It Lost

[Kenny Coyote]

He was an icon because he was the most popular TV villain. It's possible to understand a villain's motives and reasons, but I usually don't agree with it.

Oh geez, not this again. Dallas was not a show that had heroes and villains. Dallas was not the type of show whose characters were delineated in that way. All of it's characters were somewhere in between heroes and villains. They were all flawed people depicted in shades of gray - not depicted in the absolute black and white categories of heroes and villains..

But since you seem to be determined to believe otherwise, tell me: Who was the hero, or who were the heroes of Dallas?

 

[Willie Oleson]

JR was not a one-dimensional character. But most people liked him because he was a very entertaining villain. And that's a simple, rock-solid fact.

It's you, and only you, who's determined to find every loophole in the universe to justify and applaud this horrible man's personality.
Because he made money.
Well, he really wasn't such a great business man. He made a lot of unnecessary enemies - never a good thing, and certainly not in the oil business - and if JR was my son I wouldn't even let him near Ewing Oil.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

JR was not a one-dimensional character. But most people liked him because he was a very entertaining villain. And that's a simple, rock-solid fact.

It's you, and only you, who's determined to find every loophole in the universe to justify and applaud this horrible man's personality.
Because he made money.
Well, he really wasn't such a great business man. He made a lot of unnecessary enemies - never a good thing, and certainly not in the oil business - and if JR was my son I wouldn't even let him near Ewing Oil.

You forgot this: But since you seem to be determined to believe otherwise, tell me: Who was the hero, or who were the heroes of Dallas?

 

[Willie Oleson]

A story with a bad guy doesn't mean that the other characters are heroes.
You seem to have a very fixed idea of what's possible in a story and what's not.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

A story with a bad guy doesn't mean that the other characters are heroes.
You seem to have a very fixed idea of what's possible in a story and what's not.

A story of heroes and villains without at least one hero would make about as much sense as a movie about cops and robbers without the cops. You can't have it both ways. A show's characters are delineated into heroes and villains or they're not.

JR had a lot of bad qualities, no question. He also had redeeming qualities. Villains don't have those. You even admitted regarding JR: "most people liked him." A villain is not a man with a variety of bad qualities and redeeming qualities whom most of the audience likes. A villain is not liked; he is hated.

You can't name one hero in Dallas. Do you know why? It's because Dallas made a conscious choice to not delineate its characters into the absolute categories of heroes and villains. They chose to go in the stylistic direction of showing a variety of flawed characters who existed in a moral area of shades of gray. None of the Dallas lead characters had morals and actions that can be defined in absolutes of black and white, villain and hero. Dallas made that stylistic choice. If you're unhappy about it, take it up with the producers and creator of the show.

By the way, here's a quote from your "villain": "With family, you play fair because there are rules to follow, and if you do, you'll be able to live with yourself."

 

[Jimmy Todd]

Dallas had heroes, albeit flawed ones. I consider Bobby, Pam, Ray, Clayton, Miss Ellie, and Valene heroes. They did not act heroically 24/7, but they never gave up their core values and became corrupted when doing so would have been the easiest thing to do at the time.
The one who came closest to doing so was Bobby in season 5(initially not telling JR Christopher was not his son) and season 6(fight for Ewing Oil). I could understand people doubting Bobby and Ray's heroic qualities. However, in no way do I see JR in "shades of grey." He raper two women, stole baby Lucy from Valeme, and exploited workers for profit. And he never once showed the slightest bit of remorse. That's evil.
Most heroic person in Dallas history: Valene. She was the most vulnerable, had the most to lose, the least resources to rely on, yet she never gave up or allowed herself to be corrupted by JR.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Dallas had heroes, albeit flawed ones. I consider Bobby, Pam, Ray, Clayton, Miss Ellie, and Valene heroes. They did not act heroically 24/7, but they never gave up their core values and became corrupted when doing so would have been the easiest thing to do at the time.
The one who came closest to doing so was Bobby in season 5(initially not telling JR Christopher was not his son) and season 6(fight for Ewing Oil). I could understand people doubting Bobby and Ray's heroic qualities. However, in no way do I see JR in "shades of grey." He raper two women, stole baby Lucy from Valeme, and exploited workers for profit. And he never once showed the slightest bit of remorse. That's evil.
Most heroic person in Dallas history: Valene. She was the most vulnerable, had the most to lose, the least resources to rely on, yet she never gave up or allowed herself to be corrupted by JR.

Do you see the contradiction in classifying JR as a villain because he "stole baby Lucy from Valene", while you classify Miss Ellie as a hero (heroine)? Miss Ellie was complicit in it! She kept baby Lucy in her home and raised her, so clearly she had possession of Lucy. If Ellie was a heroine, why did she keep possession of Lucy rather than give Lucy back to Valene? Valene came to visit so clearly the opportunity for Miss Ellie to do so existed.

You described Valene as the most heroic person in Dallas history. When did Valene ask Miss Ellie, or better yet, demand Miss Ellie give Lucy back to her? You say Valene never gave up. We never once saw Valene even try to get Miss Ellie to give Lucy back to her. So, in that scenario, you're right in that she never gave up, but only because one first as to make the attempt in order to be able to give up. One cannot give up doing what he or she has never done! However, never even making the attempt hardly makes one heroic.

As I've said before, you can't have it both ways.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

I'm going to edit my last post. Miss Ellie I'm not sure about. She was a hero in her battle against cancer, but she alo looked the other way when it came to a lot of Jock and JR'S business dealings. She could go in the "shades of grey" cat

 

[Kenny Coyote]

I'm going to edit my last post. Miss Ellie I'm not sure about. She was a hero in her battle against cancer, but she alo looked the other way when it came to a lot of Jock and JR'S business dealings. She could go in the "shades of grey" cat

How about Valene?

You described Valene as the most heroic person in Dallas history. When did Valene ask Miss Ellie, or better yet, demand Miss Ellie give Lucy back to her? You say Valene never gave up. We never once saw Valene even try to get Miss Ellie to give Lucy back to her. As Miss Ellie was raising Lucy, she had possession of Lucy more often than anyone else. She would have been the one for Valene to confronted demand Lucy be returned.

So, in that scenario, you're right in that Valene "never gave up", but only because one first as to make the attempt in order to be able to give up. One cannot give up doing what he or she has never done! However, never even making the attempt hardly makes one heroic.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

Oh, I love a good debate!
As soon as I sent my first post, I had misgivings about Miss Ellie for exactly the reasons you said. So I'll concede Miss Ellie.
I don't, however, believe I'm having it both ways at all. JR threatened to have Valene killed if she ever came back to Dallas, yet she did come back to Dallas to meet Lucy on more than one occasion. She had every reason to believe JR was the kind of person who would carry through on such a threat. Valene was a poor, uneducated woman in the South during the 1970s. She was David going against Goliath in the truest sense.
JR even tried to bribe her, but she refused. For someone in her position, it must have been very tempting for her to give in and take the money. But Valene did not. She also, if you watch Knots Landing, never became bitter or cynical. That takes great character. Yes, give Valene a cape and a shirt with a big "V" on it. She's a hero.
Also, the quote you sent Willie where JR tells John Ross you must always play fair with family is not a good example of JR not being a true villain. He didn't mean a word of it. He sure as heck never played fair with Sue Ellen, Gary, Ray, or Bobby. For example, he paid a woman to sue Bobby for custody of Christopher not long after Pam's car crash!
I'll admit the concepts of "good" and "evil" can become murky and the term "hero" can be tossed around a bit too much. I can see how the other characters I mentioned could be debatable as to being heroes. They were all rich and knew matter what happened, there would always be a certain level of protection for them. JR and Val I see unequivocally in the categories of Villian and Hero.

 

[Taylor Bennett Jr.]

I'm going to edit my last post. Miss Ellie I'm not sure about. She was a hero in her battle against cancer, but she alo looked the other way when it came to a lot of Jock and JR'S business dealings. She could go in the "shades of grey" cat

Also, as much as she's considered the 'wise matriarch' and beloved by many (I often fall into that camp), I like it when people point out that her insistence on her sons staying at Southfork can be incredibly manipulative and even downright creepy from a modern context. I guess the implication is that she was so traumatized by what happened with Gary in the early Valene/Lucy days, that she got a bit extreme in this department.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Oh, I love a good debate!

Me too! I enjoy debating you because you back up your statements, you don't ignore difficult questions to answer, and you keep things on a civil, adult level.

Some do choose to ignore or "not see" the difficult questions. My favorite part of a debate is being asked difficult questions! They force me to back up my argument. If I can't do that, if the question makes it impossible for me to defend my argument, I'm forced to change my view to one that is more correct. That''s a win/win situation! I wonder, why is it so many have never realized that?

I don't, however, believe I'm having it both ways at all. JR threatened to have Valene killed if she ever came back to Dallas, yet she did come back to Dallas to meet Lucy on more than one occasion. She had every reason to believe JR was the kind of person who would carry through on such a threat. Valene was a poor, uneducated woman in the South during the 1970s. She was David going against Goliath in the truest sense.

In the first two episodes of season two, Reunion I and II, Valene came to visit Southfork while JR was there! So how seriously did she take the death threat? Either she didn't take it too seriously, or she valued getting Lucy back so much she was willing to take the risk. Either way, Valene was there, and not just for a few minutes. She and Gary stayed there overnight, maybe several nights, under the same roof as JR. Clearly Valene had the courage to face the threat of danger from JR.

Clearly Valene had the time and the opportunity to confront Miss Ellie and demand Ellie return Lucy to her. Your heroine never made the attempt to confront Miss Ellie about returning Lucy. Miss Ellie wasn't violent. I don't think there was any physical harm to fear from at least asking Miss Ellie to give Lucy back to her, yet Valene didn't even try.

Gary was also there to back her up if need be! Still, Valene did nothing to get Lucy back in Reunion I and Reunion II. Lucy even told Valene "I'd rather be with you." If Valene had truly been heroic, she would have demanded Miss Ellie return Lucy, preferably years before then, also with Gary to back her up, but if not, better late than never.

It's worth noting that no physical harm came to Valene for returning to Southfork. Not then, and not any other time we saw Valene at Southfork.

Also, Valene was a part time character at best on Dallas. She only appeared in a handful of episodes. As such, she's hardly qualified to the the heroine to oppose your designated "villain" JR. To fight the villain, your heroine has to actually be present and ready to do battle on more than a very part time basis. Valene and Gary together didn't even take the fight to JR.

Also, the quote you sent Willie where JR tells John Ross you must always play fair with family is not a good example of JR not being a true villain. He didn't mean a word of it.

JR meant every bit of it. As evidence, JR never did anything while Bobby was blind to take advantage of his condition and try to take the company, or assets of the company from Bobby and put them in accounts under his own name. JR went on to tell John Ross that when Bobby got well, then he would fight Bobby. He made good on that as well. he didn't succeed in taking the company from Bobby, but clearly he made the effort to deceive Bobby in business on many occasions, some well before Bobby ever got blinded, and some after Bobby recovered. All of those times where when Bobby had his sight. When Bobby didn't have his sight, JR never used it against him. That is my evidence that JR meant every bit of what he told John Ross.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Also, as much as she's considered the 'wise matriarch' and beloved by many (I often fall into that camp), I like it when people point out that her insistence on her sons staying at Southfork can be incredibly manipulative and even downright creepy from a modern context. I guess the implication is that she was so traumatized by what happened with Gary in the early Valene/Lucy days, that she got a bit extreme in this department.

What I love is the outright hypocrisy by those who condemn Jock as being such a bad, unethical, immoral man and at the same time praise and love Miss Ellie! If someone is going to praise and love Miss Ellie, despite her terribly destructive favoritism, and her emotional extortion of Jock, then at least be consistent. If Miss Ellie is a woman you think is great, then by extension her ideal man, the man she married and stayed married to for over 40 years, must have been a very good man too. A virtuous, rational woman of self-esteem doesn't give her love, her undying love, to a scoundrel.

To those who love to demonize Jock: Go ahead if that's what floats your boat but be honest enough to admit this: If you really think Jock is such a bad man, then you must also be thinking: What horrible mess of a woman would love, marry, have and raise children with, and stay married to such an awful man?

It is because I see both Miss Ellie and Jock as neither heroes nor villains, but as they are - basically good people with some flaws, that I have no contradictions in how I think of them.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

I appreciate your threads and ability to hold your own in a debate and not resort to ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, that's becoming more and more rare.

Regarding Valene, there was that first time when she came back where she didn't know JR wouldn't make good on her threat. If I recall correctly, she came back all in her own then. Also, she knew Gary wasn't the most reliable support anyway.
Her main beef was with JR. She didn't turn on Miss Ellie, I'm assuming, because JR was the main hurdle for her.
I don't think how long a character is in the show matters. She's still a significant character in the whole Ewing saga. I think she's the only one who would be a dyed in the wool hero.
JR may have played fair with Bobby when he was blind, but there were so many other times when he didn't. What do you think of JR paying someone to die for custody of Christopher? Is that fair play? What about setting up Gary to fail when Gary came back?
Fair play is meeting each other on an equal playing field. No back stabbing, sucker punches, or unfair advantages. JR, with the exception of when Bobby was blind, never played fair. If he did, please give me an example.
Also, you say JR is not a true villian
What about the two rapes? Are there some lines a character can't cross, in your opinion, or they are no longer morally ambiguous.

 

[Willie Oleson]

Some do choose to ignore or "not see" the difficult questions.

Oh, there's nothing difficult about your questions.

A villain is not liked; he is hated

I believe that the word "villain" is mostly used in the context of fiction and entertainment. These villains are not really a threat to us, personally.
I just couldn't call Hitler a "villain", it would feel like an insult towards his many, many victims.

But people can enjoy the misery and pain they cause to other fictional characters - it's called a story. Villainous characters are often used to set a storyline in motion.
But this has already been explained a thousand times, and guess what! there's going to be another "difficult" question by Kenny that we "can't" answer.
You take things too literally, it feels like trying to explain something to a child.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

Oh, there's nothing difficult about your questions.

Really? Well, then last time you just "didn't see it"? If you didn't see it, isn't it pretty dishonest of you to claim to know it wasn't difficult?

I don't want you to "accidentally miss" the question a second time; that would be ludicrous. So here, it is in bold:

Since you insist that Dallas is a show that delineated its characters into the categories of heroes and villains, and that it is therefore inaccurate to describe the characters of Dallas as people of varying ethics and morals who exist somewhere in between the absolute terms "heroes" and "villains", would you please tell us who you consider the heroes and the villains of Dallas?

 

[Willie Oleson]

Since you insist that Dallas is a show that delineated its characters into the categories of heroes and villains

If you're not interested in anything I have to say then at least stop putting words in my mouth.

This discussion has become a futile exercise, it would be easier to explain colours to a blind man. Take that as literally as you want.
Bye bye, Kenny!

 

[Kenny Coyote]

people can enjoy the misery and pain they cause to other fictional characters

Some people can. There is a certain type of person who could rejoice at watching Bobby get shot by Katherine and then revel in watching his agony of being blinded. That same type of person could laugh hysterically as Bobby gets run over by Katherine and smile with satisfaction while hearing Pam's tortured screams. They enjoy what they see because they believe they have finally found what they've been seeking - a justification for their own depravity.

Bye bye, Kenny!

Don't let the door hit you on your way out, Willie.

 

[Kenny Coyote]

I appreciate your threads and ability to hold your own in a debate and not resort to ad hominem attacks. Unfortunately, that's becoming more and more rare.

It’s becoming more and more rare by the day.

Regarding Valene, there was that first time when she came back where she didn't know JR wouldn't make good on her threat. If I recall correctly, she came back all in her own then. Also, she knew Gary wasn't the most reliable support anyway.
Her main beef was with JR. She didn't turn on Miss Ellie, I'm assuming, because JR was the main hurdle for her.
I don't think how long a character is in the show matters. She's still a significant character in the whole Ewing saga. I think she's the only one who would be a dyed in the wool hero.

How often she appears doesn’t lessen her character’s virtues, her ethics or morals, I’ll grant you that. But how is “the only dyed in the wool hero” going to take the fight to the “villain” if she appears on average, less than one episode a year?


The hero and the villain are adversaries. It’s the hero’s job to fight and hopefully vanquish the villain. To do that, the hero has to be present.

JR may have played fair with Bobby when he was blind, but there were so many other times when he didn't. What do you think of JR paying someone to die for custody of Christopher? Is that fair play? What about setting up Gary to fail when Gary came back?
Fair play is meeting each other on an equal playing field. No back stabbing, sucker punches, or unfair advantages. JR, with the exception of when Bobby was blind, never played fair. If he did, please give me an example.

Paying Alden to pretend to go after Christopher, and then Alden on her own actually going after custody – That’s inexcusable. I can’t condone that. Setting up Gary to fail, not quite as bad as the Alden case, but again, I can’t condone it.


Fair play is what you said. No argument there either. However, from the story Dallas tells us, and since this is fiction we have to either go by the story they tell us or just not watch, there is no such thing as fair play in the oil industry. Not for anyone who lasts for long.


The way they presented the oil business is what I would equate to a shark tank. If you’re not the biggest, baddest great white in the tank, one of the other sharks is gonna eat you up. That’s why Bobby became a harder, more aggressive man during the contest. He became what he had to be to not only to survive but to flourish. To win control of Ewing Oil. That’s justifiable. If you're naive enough to think you can survive in that cutthroat a business sticking to fair play, it won’t end well for you, although it will end quickly.

Also, you say JR is not a true villian
What about the two rapes? Are there some lines a character can't cross, in your opinion, or they are no longer morally ambiguous.

That’s correct. JR is not a villain. He’s a bad guy, sometimes a real bad guy, who still happens to have enough redeeming values that he’s just too likable to be a villain. In the early 1980s JR Ewing was the most popular character on TV. JR Ewing was just too likable, and as a result, too well liked to be a villain. He was the first of a new type of character “the cool bad guy.” He does bad things but in a cool enough way with the right style, pizazz, and attitude. JR was also always smiling and it's hard, especially for women, to not like a guy with an upbeat personality who looks happy and positive minded. People couldn’t help but like him even though deep down I'm sure at least some of them kind of felt like they shouldn’t.


How realistic is that? As realistic as it gets. Any guy who has ever seen a beautiful, hot girl with everything going for her start going out with some prick because “he’s a bad boy she can’t resist” knows exactly what I’m talking about. It’s probably where the expression “Nice guys come in last” came from. Well, every guy wants to be successful with women, and since they know that a lot of chicks dig bad guys, then some of them are gonna become that kind of guy if they believe that's gonna make the difference between success and failure in getting that particular girl they just have to have.


Just like Bobby transforming to win – not the girl in that case – but to win the company. It’s the same principle. If there is something or someone a man can’t live without, are you going to blame him for becoming what he needs to be to have it? It’s survival of the fittest, remember that, not survival of the nicest, or survival of the most ethical. Have you ever seen the girls in a nightclub all of the sudden stop flirting with the "bad guy" at the bar who's got charm, swagger and attitude and flock to the dull, plain looking, but very nice, ethical guy who just walked in the door? No way. That’s science fiction at best.


Not every guy is going to be willing or even able to change who he is and become the “bad guy” to impress the hot chick who is attracted to that type, or to win control of a company, but a LOT of them are. Enough, that they would, and did, identify with JR. Lots wanted to be just like him! They envied him having the money, the power, and the women.


How are you going to have a show where so many women are attracted to the villain and so many men admire the villain? How will the hero get any sympathy? It’s impossible! How about when the hero appears ready to kick the villain’s ass and the audience actually boos the hero? That’s a disaster! You can’t have that. It doesn’t work.


How about removing the hero altogether? Well a hero vs villain movie without the hero is an even worse idea. Imagine Die Hard with the German terrorist Hans Gruber but without the Bruce Willis character John McCLane. Oh, that would have been big box office!!!


How about the movie Dirty Harry without “Dirty” Harry Callahan? All you’ve got left then is the villain - "Scorpio." Who is gonna pay money to watch Scorpio shoot priests and nuns, rape and kill girls, and on and on with nobody capable enough to stop him? Nobody would go see it! Would you want to see it, even for free? I doubt it. Most of us don’t get off on seeing a villain terrorize the innocent citizens of a city for two hours with nobody there capable enough to stop him. That's because he’s not a “cool bad guy.” He’s a villain - a repugnant piece of sh*t with no redeeming qualities.


That’s a real villain. That requires a real hero. Believe me, a real villain with nobody to stop him, again imagine Die Hard or Dirty Harry without the heroes and just the villains. They would have been absolute failures! Dallas didn't need heroes because it had no villains. It was an ensemble show filed with people of varying morals and ethics who existed along a spectrum of shades of gray, and then at the center there was JR - the "cool bad guy" far too likable to be a villain. It was a formula for more success than they ever dreamed of having. It turned out they did things just right, in the years when Dallas was hot, anyway. Dallas was the hottest thing on TV in the early to mid 80s and it’s damn hard to argue with success.

 

[Jimmy Todd]

Ok, @Kenny Coyote, these are some interesting points.
The hero having to be present to fight the villian makes sense. If the hero doesn't do anything, what good is he or she? I think it also depends on the goal or "quest" of the hero. Getting to see Lucy was her quest and she succeeded in that. It took her several years, but in addition to being poor and alone, it's important to remember how young Valene was when she had Lucy. I believe 15 or 16. She was a poor kid on her own up against the
Ewijg money and influence. Not easy.
If Valene's quest was to get Lucy away from the Ewings, well she failed at that, but it's debatable if that was her quest. JR called her out in this when he visited Knots Landing. He told her she can't blame him for her relationship with Lucy because she could visit Lucy any time she wanted and vice versa.
I still believe a hero is one who holds onto their core values when it would be easy to give in to the wickedness and cynicism of the world, which Valene always did.
This brings me to your point about being cutthroat in the oil business. I agree with that, but how cutthroat one has to become is debatable. It can be a rough game and one can play rough, but do they have to lose their core values? Maybe, but there are two philosophers whose ideas relate to this, imho: Hannah Atendt and Jean-Paul Sartre.
I'm sure your familiar with the phrase Arendt coined, :the banality of evil." Evil becomes an everyday thing, so it's accepted and not thought about too much. However, is it any less evil just because it has become a mundane part of life? Are we all subject to the "banality of evil"? For example, if I became an oil baron would I engage in corrupt practices such as blackmail and exploiting workers to the point where it became just part of the job and I never gave it much thought? I'd like to think I wouldn't, but if I was born into the same circumstances as Bobby and JR, I very well might.
Sartre brought up the idea of "bad faith." My understanding of it is people justify unethical or immoral behavior by saying, "it was the times," or "it was the culture" so no one really thought it was evil. Is this true or are people of that time period or culture just kidding themselves and deep down they know what they're doing is wrong?
My point is that if someone in such a situation takes an honest look at themselves and decides, despite the pressure to maintain their code of ethics, they are a hero. I could be completely naive in thinking that's possible in the oil business or politics, but I would like to believe somebody could do it.
Here's a thought: Aristotle said a classic tragic character must, among other things, be basically good but have gone wrong and have sone admirable qualities, even when they go down the dark path. They also have a fatal flaw. JR did many evil things, but he had admirable qualities: tenacity, the ability to take command of a situation, quick wit. Maybe he and several other characters aren't just villains, but have some elements of the tragic. I'm not saying they are all 100% classic tragic characters, but some aspects. JR was pretty much told by both parents that he was not their favorite. That has to be scarring for a little kid to hear. Returning to Atendt, would anyone be just as bad as JR if their parents sent them the same message?
Just throwing this out there because of the definitions you and I have for what constitutes a "villian," a "bad guy," and a"hero."