April 2002 posts
Angel's Part In The Apocalypse -
A Theory -- banana hammock, 05:14:11 04/16/02 Tue
This post contains spoilers for anyone who has not yet seen 'Forgiving'.
I am someone who greatly enjoys spoilers, and those have been in abundance this season for Buffy.
But I have to admit now that this is perhaps ruinging my enjoyment of the show itself, because I am
now anticipating Angel, which has hardly been spoiled at all this season, much more than mother
show BTVS. My anticipation of the coming finale of Angel has also got me thinking much more and
theorising more on what can be the future of Angel and the gang.
Now, I have not seen 'Forgiving' yet, but being the spoiler whore that I am, I have already read
episode summaries and know everything. I visit many message boards, and the main theme of most
today is shock and dread for the future because of Angel's attempted murder of Wesley. This cannot
forbode anything that can be thought of as good for the group as a whole and for Angel as an
individual.
This got me to thinking about Connor, and his higher role in proceedings. His birth is a miracle in
itself, something that defies belief - a human born of two vampires. And yet. So can this amazing
turn of events really be something that we can just accept - or must we search for the hidden truth
behind Connor's birth? I feel compelled to vote for the latter theory.
I have no proof for this theory, but it's something I wanted to share in the hope of feedback. We have
heard so much about Angel's major role in the Apocalypse - something that was first foretold in
'Blind Date', season one. Later we found out, through a conversation between Holland Manners and
Lindsey McDonald, that Wolfram & Hart did not want Angel dead - they wanted him bad. Whether
this was with or without his soul has not been addressed, and doesn't seem to matter to Wolfram &
Hart. This means that although Angel has a definite role in the Apocalypse he can go either way, his
side in the abttle is undecided and can be changed.
In light of these facts, I theorise that Connor's birth may not be the wonderful event that we all
construed at first, but something controlled by a darker power, knowing that a young child could not
survive the daily life of Angel Investigations, with so many demons after him, and knowing that the
loss of his son would be something that would send Angel insane enough to kill again, as
demonstrated by his attack on Wesley.
I would just like to know what others think.
[>
Interesting Theory (Spoilers for Forgiving, S2) -- Scroll, 20:04:48 04/16/02 Tue
I understand what you're saying about using Connor (and his likely death) as a means of pushing
Angel over the edge. I think it'll even be interesting to see him start to tip over and maybe even get
his feet wet a little in the darkness (like he did in Forgiving with the whole torture scene), but I
really want to see his friends pull him out in time. I don't think another 'beige' Angel arc (otherwise
known as Season 2's assault on W&H) is the way to go. I'm sure ME has other plans for our Angel.
It'll be fun, and painful, to watch but I can't wait for next week!
Buffy = Cordelia ??? (slightly longish) --
chuk_38, 08:15:47 04/16/02 Tue
hi there, i am reletively new to posting here and if this has been brought up before then i am sorry
for rehashing old news. But with that said, here i go.
after seeing 'once more with feeling' a few months ago and watching buffy singing about wanting to
be a normal girl,
" where theres life theres hope, everydays a gift, wishes can come true, whistle while, you work, all
day, to be like other girls, to fit in this glittering world"
this kinda caught my attention as i knew she was singing about herself, but cant those lines be true
to Dawns predicament aswell?
she wants to fit in, at school and at home, and she feels that she is not getting the attention she
needs, so the theivery ensues. and if i am right, dawn is now in high school? and when buffy was her
age, she was going to places like the bronze constantly, but dawn only seems to go with buffy and her
friends. does dawn just need some more friends?
and was there any other bits in this episode where soeone could have been singing about someone
else, not themselves, but in a sneaky not too obvious way?
ok, totally went off on a tangent. sorry, ok my main point after hearing buffy sing.
when buffy was in LA she was cordelia(not literally, but almost) and she was totally happy with
herself. But when she moved to sunnydale and befriended willow and xander she slowly lost her
cordelianess, but allways had bits of her old self in her. What i was wanting to know was, (ok, i know
that every high school has there bitch, and cordelia was it in sunnydale) originally was she there to
show buffy what she once was and could possibly be again, the normal girl with the social life and
the lack of responsabilities?
and would this make it harder for her, to know that everytime she went to school, she was looking at
the girl who has almost stole her life, and buffy was left with the certainty of dying before middle
age?
ok i'll stop here!
thanx for bearing with me :)
DAWN, we knew she was coming, but from
when? -- chuk_38, 08:31:06 04/16/02 Tue
hey folks,
i was just thinking about dawn and how joss basically told us about her showing up in sunnydale,
without actually telling us, and i was wondering since when he was doing his little plants.
SEASON 4, episode 22, restless
in buffys dream(i think) , she is having a conversation with tara, and in it she says something like "
be back before dawn"
SEASON 3, episodes 21&22, graduation day
when buffy and faith are in their comas, they meet in a bedroom in buffys house and are making a
bed, and i think that they talk about "getting ready for little sis"
and this is the farthest back clue about dawn i can think about, are there any others you lot can
think of, and has joss done this with any other storylines in buffy/angel?
[>
Re: DAWN, we knew she was coming, but from when? -- Dead Soul, 09:31:02 04/16/02
Tue
Faith, Hope & Trick - Buffy says its a good thing she's an only child. Yes, my TTMQ is pretty
high.
Dead Soul
[> [>
Re: DAWN, we knew she was coming, but from when? -- GreatRewards, 11:25:24
04/16/02 Tue
Whats "TTMQ"???
[> [> [>
Timeline Tampering Memory Quotient? (NT) -- Pete, 01:47:49 04/17/02 Wed
[> [> [>
TTMQ -- LittleBit, 04:21:01 04/17/02 Wed
Think Too Much Quotient. It's one of the information bits for registered posters.
[> [> [> [>
Oh! I thought it was... -- GreatRewards, 16:06:57 04/17/02 Wed
Television's Theater Minus Quality!
[> [> [> [> [>
LOL!!! ;) N/T -- LittleBit, 16:16:52 04/17/02 Wed
[>
Re: DAWN, we knew she was coming, but from when? -- Mystery, 08:16:40 04/17/02
Wed
I was going over the transcripts for "Restless" and when I was reading part of the Willow's dream, I
thought it might be a hidden reference to dawn. (quote curtesy of Psyche)
TARA: I think it's strange. I mean, I think I should worry that we haven't found her name.
WILLOW: Who, Miss Kitty?
(Shot of their kitten, playing with a ball of red yarn in slow-motion.)
TARA: You'd think she'd let us know her name by now.
WILLOW: She will. (Looking down at Tara) She's not all grown yet.
It seems on the surface that they're talking about Miss Kitty, but Tara never did give a positive or
negative answer to Willow's question. It seems just like Joss and company to hide it like that.
"Restless" probably would have been the time that the Monks started re-writing everyone's
memories in preparation for Dawn arrival.
OT: Marsters' Band - Ghost of the Robot - 14
Below - 4.21.02 -- Liq, 09:03:23 04/16/02 Tue
Just wanted to let you all know that James Marsters, Steve DeKnight, Doug Petrie and their new
band "Ghost of the Robot" will be performing at 14 Below on Sunday, April 21st at 7:00pm.
**IMPORTANT**
Tickets will go on sale Tuesday, April 16th (that's TODAY)at 12:00 Noon (Pacific time). You access
the Online Ordering Form by visiting www.14below.com
and clicking on the ORDER Link found on the pop-up window that loads before the homepage. You
will also be able to access the link via the Calendar page at 12:00 Noon PDT.
If these instructions are not completely clear, feel free to email me, but please attempt to follow them
first as the ole mailbox has been pretty full since last night, and the more email I have to get
through, the longer it will take me to get back to you, and we do anticipate a fast sellout.
LJ
Ok, slight inconsistency in ANgel this
season -- vampire hunter D, 12:25:47 04/16/02 Tue
Tonite, we learned that Sahjan was made incoporial, so that he could never touch anything. Yet,
when we first met him (way back in Offspriong I think) he was throwing spooky sand and then
smpoked a cigarette. How could he have done either if he isn't solid enough to touch anything? Also,
he has sat in chairs several times, and I remember him knocking on a door too.
I hate it when writers do that.
[>
Re: Ok, slight inconsistency in ANgel this season -- Apophis, 12:41:25 04/16/02 Tue
I do too, but I think I can explain (or creatively cover for the writers' errors). Sahjan, while
intangible, obviously possesses energy manipulation abilities; he can activate and control computers
and TV sets at will and open portals to other dimensions. Perhaps his energy manipulation powers
translate into a form of telekinesis allowing him to lift small amounts of matter with willpower (like
Larry Niven's Gil "the Arm" Hamilton, who had a telekinetic "arm" that could only lift small objects).
This would allow him to scatter the sand necessary for his ritual. The smoking is a bit harder, but
maybe, due to the energies present for his ritual, he was closer to the material universe than usual
and took the oportunity to indulge in some 21st century vice.
As for chairs and knocking on doors: he can sit down for the same reason he doesn't fall through the
ground; he believes he's supposed to. Being intangible, he can subconsciously control his position
relative to the material plain to some extent, like ghosts. He could knock on the door by
manipulating vibrations in the air, the same way he talks without being able to draw air into his
immaterial lungs.
[> [>
Re: Ok, slight inconsistency in ANgel this season -- the warden, 15:05:08 04/16/02
Tue
hahaha, nice try apophis....thats as close as youre going to get to an explanation though. i am still
disturbed by the fact that sahjan is (or should i say was) a time traveller and not know what the
future holds....
many inconsistencies with angel this year. not liking it one bit...
[> [> [>
Re: Not knowing what the future holds -- nightfox7, 23:53:45 04/16/02 Tue
is really not a continuity problem. If you think of time like a tree with an infinite number of
branches (possibilities) there is no way he could investigate all the possible outcomes of his time
tampering. Satisfied that he fixed the problem he just stopped tampering.
[> [>
For what it's worth, your explanation suits me just fine -- Rob, 19:52:49 04/16/02
Tue
As we speak, I'm wiping some sweat from my brow, confident in the knowledge that a possible
continuity problem has been thwarted!
Rob
[> [> [>
Re: For what it's worth, your explanation suits me just fine -- the warden, 21:28:54
04/16/02 Tue
damn rob, you are gullible...
[> [> [>
Re: For what it's worth, your explanation suits me just fine -- Rob, 22:12:50 04/16/02
Tue
I'm either gullible, or always completely desperate to patch up plot holes! I can't help it! It's an
obsession! If there's any explanation around an inconsistency, I support it wholeheartedly, just so I
don't stay up all night trying to figure out my own explanation!!!
Rob :o)
Transcript of Tim Minear's commentary of
"Are you now or ever have been" Part 1 -- Rahael, 14:28:05 04/16/02
Tue
(Pretty much my first draft of this, so forgive mispellings of actors whose names I do not know, or for
any grammatical mistakes - which might even be Tim's fault!)
Are you now or have you ever been?
Commentary by Tim Minear
This was the first episode I wrote for Season two of Angel, and so far, my favourite episode that I
wrote because I got to do pretty much what I’ve ever wanted to do by ripping off all my favourite film
noirs. The hardest part of this episode was writing the present day scenes. This really isn’t a typical
Angel flashback episode wherein you will have an A plot in the present day and scenes in the past
which reflect on the A plot in the present day. This story really is one story that takes place over a
period of about 50 years and its told out of order.
Angel ran into this Hotel in the previous episode and he is having his minions Wesley and Cordelia
look into the past of this hotel. He’s not telling them why which is a little suspicious to them but
clearly he has his reasons. And as they start musing on this photographic effect we’re about to see
which came out about 60% of what I was hoping it to be we start pushing into this black and white
photograph and it becomes colour and now we are in the fifties as the colour comes up.
And then we go into the hotel in 1952 and this is what we call the Titanic shot. I actually tried to
pull this shot out of the episode and Joss made me put it back. You know, Joss’ show. It is a beautiful
shot and we shot this with a variable speed camera and that’s why the slow motion becomes regular
speed. And here you see the character that we on the set were calling “Chet”, the bellhop and the
John Capellus, who plays the Hotel Manager who was apparently in “Forever Night” as I kept
reading on the internet and people I guess thought that I was ripping of “Forever Knight” by casting
a guy who was on that show.
Again the look of this episode can be attributed to our brilliant director of photography Herb Davies,
who filtered all the Fifties period scenes with a specific glowy filter. Whatever he did it was
perfect.
The director of this episode, David Semel and I worked very closely together in conceiving what this
episode would look like. In my script I described very long passages of action without dialogue and
when you read the script you really feel like, hopefully, that you are just slowly drifting through this
world in an almost dreamlike quality and I think Mr Semel really captured that here.
(Scene of bellhop walking down the corridor.)
Again this is not standard camera work for a television show…..I felt it was very important that the
camera slowly move this hotel through this space, so that we really feel as if we are in the middle of
this atmosphere. And here we are about to learn that something terrifying lives in room 217 of this
hotel and the bellhop does not want to have to face it. He hears something moving around inside and
now he’s backing away, and he’s trying to get away from the terrible hideous scary monster inside
room 217 and now we hear the door being unlocked inside and we are about to learn just what that
terrifying thing is and here it comes, get ready for it: It’s David Boreanaz!
(Credits roll)
I think all the production on this worked here. Our costumer and our production designer and the
cinematography, and hair and make up all created this great Fifties feel.
This was the second episode of the season and we knew that we were going to do a story that set up
the fact that Angel was going to move operations to this Hotel, and we wanted to give him a past in
the Hotel. And for the longest time we thought we were going to do a story set in the Forties, because
we all love the Forties, and we thought that would be quite glamorous, possibly get some Nazis in
there and do a kind of World War II thing and then one day Joss came to me and said “You know, I
think it should be in the Fifties.” And then it made perfect sense, because we had all ready been sort
of moving toward a story about paranoia. And if you are going to set something era specific, you are
going to put it in the Fifties, if you are going to do a story about paranoia.
(Modern day Angel in the Hotel)
I never thought we got the Hotel run down enough for my tastes.
(Fifties Hotel)
This is one of my favourite frames coming up (Angel walking down dark Hotel corridor) not cos my
names coming up but because of the silhouette of the man in the hat in the background. Doors open
here, here comes the movie star and his young friend exiting the building. Very important to me that
when the movie star and Angel re-enter their rooms, that their doors shut at the same time. I sat in
the editing room for a while trying to make that work just the way I wanted it to, and I felt it did.
(Angel in his room)
This may be my favourite sequence in this episode. For the first few scenes, Angel says nothing and
we’re really with him, in his point of view as we pass through this world. We’re not really a part of it,
everything is happening on the edges of the frame as it is with Angel’s life. Things happening on the
outside, he’s not really involved with anything. Again long tracking shots of Angel moving through
these corridors and he sees this guy up ahead. I never got this shot exactly how I wanted it. I wanted
it to be very clear that when Angel leans over to see who this guy is talking to when he hears these
whispering voices that there is in fact no one there. The hall ends basically right where you saw.
Tracking back. Here’s the man lurking in the hallway, the Goon as I think I call him in the script.
Angel re-enters the room with the ice. We are about to see the ingenue of this piece emerging from
his bathroom. This episode was 9 minutes over what we could do, so I had to find 9 minutes to cut
which was very painful because I loved every moment of it.
(I omit some comments about the casting of the actress).
[>
Part II -- Rahael, 14:30:57 04/16/02 Tue
There was a line here at the door that we had to cut here that I was sad to lose, in fact, some of the
dialogue feels like there may indeed be pieces missing. A couple of the couplets don’t really make
sense in context but there was a moment here where the goon leans forward and sniffs Angel and
says “is that your lilac perfume I’m smelling? I don’t think so. I don’t think you’re going to mind if I
come in and take a look around” and this is where he flashes the gun.
Coming up, probably my favourite shot. It’s when Angel runs the Private Detective down the hallway
and walks back toward Judy, walks past her and slams the door in her face as he re-enters his room.
It was very important for me that we didn’t cut, that we were on the door he had slammed in her
face and the camera arced back to where we expected to find her standing, and instead we find him
in the present day standing there, so it was almost as if he had slammed the door in his own face.
(Scene of Cordelia and Wesley in her apartment)
There was some material in this scene that we cut. I think Wesley talks some more about the hotel’s
history.
(Back to Fifties Hotel)
Coming up there were some very interesting scenes that were cut. I was sad to see them cut but
Standards and Practices made me pull them out of the episode and I do think that you still
understand what’s happening. We come off here to the Salesman’s room. We hear the whispering
voices which I think were very effective. Salesman comes over and picks up his gun. The way I
wanted to see this act was that we see this guy sit down on the bed, he puts the pillow up against his
head and he presses the muzzle of the gun against the pillow, which was a pretty disturbing image,
which I had to lose. We here the gun shot. Originally, we hear the gun shot. We cut back to the room,
we see blood pooling out and then we come back to David drinking blood, as blood is pooling next
door. And actually, hear a guy yelling to turn of the record player that is skipping, and David reaches
over and turns on his radio and jazz comes up, which I thought punctuated the moment where he
wasn’t paying any attention to what was happening.
(Bellhop and Hotel manager enter Salesman’s room)
Here two of my favourite characters in this story. I really felt that they had a life beyond the frame
and they weren’t just little stick figures I was moving around. That was one of my favourite moments
as well, I have many of them! When John Capellus comes up very close to the lens and the sound of
the bellhop’s voice drops out into the background.
(Scene cuts to Hotel Lobby)
Some more dialogue was cut here. Originally, when we cut down to what I call the Rose Gallery
downstairs, they are talking about the death of the salesman, and the actor thinks they are talking
about the play and then we learn that no, in fact there is a salesman living in the Hotel who
committed suicide but that got cut.
(Outdoor scene with Angel and Judy)
Shot at the Griffith Observatory. It does appear in “Rebel Without a Cause” and there are lots of
little nods to famous Fifties films and also authors in this episode. People have noticed that David
seems to be wearing James Dean’s jacket here from Rebel, the red jacket. Actually, we were shooting
very close to the statue of James Dean (just to camera right). Every time we turn around and see the
back of David’s head, that view is from the back of the Observatory looking down on LA, and the
front view is shot in front of the Observatory. We wanted to look at the most interesting things
possible. This scene took a lot of nipping and tucking to make it move. A lot of what I thought were
really great lines, I cut and replaced with silences, which seemed to work better.
(Back to Cordy and Wesley)
The bellhop being arrested for murder I thought was a fun little twist. I also liked the fact that
narratively, its what story telling in this episode was all about which was telling everything out of
order. So we know that he didn’t kill anybody, and we find out that he was arrested in about the
middle of the story here, and it simply informs every other scene we see him in.
(Angel and Judy in her room)
Every time the scene changes a little bit, so does the camera shot. So David Semel is telling us
emotionally what the distance is between this characters is by where he has the actor stand, and
how he breaks them apart in the middle of something and how he brings them together again. I
think it stays visually interesting the entire time and it’s a very long, talky scene.
There’s a line coming up here I really wanted to cut. Angel says, “They fired you because they were
afraid of you”. It seemed a little preachy. Unfortunately he takes a couple of steps forward as he
delivers the line and there’s no way for me to lose the line. It’ll be there forever!
(Angel and Judy in the basement)
Angel’s hearing the little whispery voices. People have often asked me what happened to the money.
Did Angel spend it? Did he use it to buy the Hotel? My feeling has always been that he sent it back
to the bank from which it was stolen, we just never covered that in an episode.
(Wesley and Cordy)
I’m not sure what’s that shirt she’s wearing, but it’s interesting. Here’s Charisma being coy and
funny, and she sure is funny. Angel here is figuring out how to kill the demon, even though to us it
looks like he’s figuring out how to restore the power to the Hotel. Another thing I liked about doing
the story out of order is that Angel tells Wesley that he’s already done the research, and we’re about
to find out that he did the research fifty years ago.
(Fifties Bookshop)
Denver here is supposed to be watching an episode of “I Love Lucy” which was broadcast that year,
so we hear some sitcom laughter. I love this actor.
(Judy in her room)
It’s Judy hearing the voices and shutting the window, trying to be strong against them.
(Hotel Lobby)
You’ll notice that the Private Eye now has a bandage over his nose which is a hommage to
“Chinatown”, in fact I gave him the name of the other private eye in “Chinatown”, Mulverhill
(?).
Here’s one of my favourite transitions from past to present. We come through the scarily empty
lobby. Angel has come back to slay this demon. He hears this noise, he turns, here come our people
(Wes, Cordy and Gunn), we cut back to Angel in the exact same spot, but it’s present day Angel.
(Wes starts chanting, the orb starts glowing)
The thing starts to appear, it’s going to appear, going to appear and bing! And we cut to Elevator
doors opening Fifty years ago.
(Judy surrounded by angry Hotel guests)
There’s a shot coming up here which reminds me very much of a shot from an old episode of the
Twilight Zone. I think it was from “The Monsters who live on Maple Street” (?) which was also an
episode about Fifties paranoia and the communist scare.
The hanging was difficult. Never quite worked how I wanted it to, but it’s still pretty shocking. David
comes out of the noose, and here comes the demon. I just thought that this demon worked. We had
him on a thing called a parallelogram which is like a giant teeter totter on wheels and it’s what gives
him this floating effect. The actor was really good. He started doing this Southern fried accent, which
is not a choice I made, it was a choice the actor made, and we all liked what he was doing. It kind of
adds a whole dimension to the racism paranoia thing, without insulting anyone from the South,
hopefully.
A beautiful shot coming up here which holds them both in the frame. David turns toward us and the
demon goes out of focus, and I think that’s such a great image. The big dramatic moment here where
Angel says “Take them all” and walks out of the door I think works pretty well. Here’s another
transition which I think worked very well, from the demon cackling with laughter to the demon
screaming with pain because he’s been forced back on to this plane.
Some criticism here from people who thought that the demon was dispatched too quickly. In my
mind its not too quickly, its taken fifty years. I’m not interested in seeing a big fight here, plus very
difficult to have a big fight with a demon on a giant parallelogram with tentacles. You can only move
so much.
I thought Alexis was hilarious here with his growing paranoia.
(Angel and old Judy)
Still there after fifty years. There was a lot of dialogue which was cut here. I hoped that it was clear
that the demon kept here safe, and kept people away from the door and that it took care of her, the
idea being that there was a symbiotic relationship between the two, so that when the demon is
killed, she will die shortly thereafter.
I was more interested in the lyrical nature of Angel walking back into a room and somebody
believing that he was a ghost and she was responsible for his death, and for her asking him to
forgive her. Because through the whole story we feel that Angel has done something terrible and he
is trying to make up for that because he needs forgiveness, and in fact, what he needs to do is to
forgive someone else, which is kind of new idea for the show. I thought David handled it beautifully.
For me one of the main points of this story is when she looks at him and says “You look the same”
and he says “I’m not”. Because in fact, he’s not the same.
(Back to Wes, Cordy and Gunn)
The hotel becomes a metaphor for Angel himself. Wesley says to him “This is a house of evil” and
Angel says to him “Not any more” and obviously Angel talking about himself here.
[> [>
Thanks! -- Masq, 14:57:39 04/16/02 Tue
What gets me is all those photographic effects he goes on about that none of us really notice, but
probably added subconsciously to our mood during the scene.
[> [> [>
Re: Thanks! -- Rahael, 15:18:27 04/16/02 Tue
Yes, I left in a lot of the comments about tracking shots and camera frames because it seemed
integral to the story.
All those shots of Present day Angel transitioning on to Fifties Angel seems to suggest to us that
Angel is the same person. But in his scene with Old Judy, we find out he's not the same at all.
And just as the Hotel is a metaphor for Angel, so is the symbiotic relationship between Judy and the
demon. Judy is cocooned in that hotel by the demon, just as Angel in his separateness has harboured
her betrayal within him.
And once the demon has been eliminated, ANgel ascends the stairs, bestows his forgiveness and
purges both himself and the Hotel - they've both changed.
There's so much more to this great ep that this commentary brought out - I'll post more when my
fingers are a little less tired!
[> [> [> [>
More comments.... -- Rahael, 09:08:22 04/17/02 Wed
(because I’m not going to let two hours work slip into the archives so quickly!)
Several things grabbed my attention.
The idea of the separateness of all these people’s lives, though they are living in the same space. This
is constantly reinforced by the many images of doors and walls, and the opening and shutting of
them. The scene where Angel drinks blood unconcernedly while the Salesman next door shoots
himself. It really builds up that sense of isolation which of course, is a fertile ground for paranoia.
The raising up of too-strong boundaries against your neighbours leads to a destructive community.
The only way the Hotel’s inhabitants bond is through mob violence. The only person who knows what
is going on in their lives is the demon.
Also, the disjointed narrative of the episode works particularly well, because as we keep leading up
to what really happened, we think, as Tim Minear points out that Angel has done something
terrible, that it’s yet another flashback to a crime. This is reinforced by the fear that he is held in by
the bellhop at the very beginning, and the way that the episode is edited. This makes the lynching
doubly effective. It also ties into that discussion of ‘Otherness’ – the human beings make Angel the
scapegoat for all the terrible things they are feeling inside. They become possessed with a monstrous
rage that is all their own (the demon doesn’t possess them; it simply talks to them).
‘Take them all’ says Angel: and he abandons his lynchers to their fate. This reminds me of his closing
the doors on the Wolfram and Hart lawyers and saying “somehow, I can’t make myself care”. In a
way, Angel is still erecting barriers between himself and human beings. This is the very problem
that Doyle points out to him in ‘City of Angels’. But Angel does show himself to be an astute judge of
human character, in his conversations with Judy; and he does appear to care for her and the other
inhabitants because he bothers to go and do research and try and defeat the demon somehow. So we
know that Angel develops his sense of ethics long before he meets Buffy!
The commentary reminded me just how much I loved this ep when I first saw it, and reinforced the
skill involved in the heightening of suspense and deception. The miasma of dread as well, which
surrounds the Fifties scenes (the air is thick with the sound of whispers and menace), contrasting
with the sunny cheerfulness of Wesley and Cordelia in her apartment. What’s done is maybe in the
past, but it keeps breaking into the narrative.
The whole floating through this Hotel thing seems to me as if we take on the perspective of the
demon floating through the Hotel – because of the way it glides everywhere.
I’m just blathering now. Being worked too hard and absolutely drained.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: More comments.... -- Masq, 11:02:29 04/17/02 Wed
I'm going to save this and any other thoughts you have on this ep for inclusion in my episode
analysis of "AYNOHYEB". Post'm if you've got'm. : ) : )
And if other commentaries on eps on your DVD get you to thinking, let us know!
[> [> [> [> [>
Great stuff, Rahael ! thank you so much for the transcript and analysis -- Ete, 11:09:42
04/17/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: More comments.... -- Rufus, 16:14:16 04/17/02 Wed
Rah, I put your stuff over at my yahoo group. You have done a wonderful job and I can't wait to see
more....specially Restless...hint hint...:)
[>
Re: Transcript of Tim Minear's commentary of "Are you now or ever have been"
Part 1 -- Slain, 13:08:32 04/17/02 Wed
Thanks muchly for the transcipt - those commentaries frequently tell you bucketloads about the
show. Joss' BTVS S1 & S2 commentaries are brilliant.
Would anyone be interested in an audio version of Joss commentary from the Season 4 DVD (which
is out in a month's time in Europe)? He didn't do anything for Season 3, but he's doing 'Hush'. If I
can find out how to, I could probably make it into an Mp3 file if anyone's interested (I'm too lazy to
do a transcript ;)).
[> [>
Ooh me, me -- agent156, 07:05:44 04/18/02 Thu
I'd be interested in it. I can just listen to it while watching the ep with the sound turned off, and it
will be just like the real thing. Could you also try to get the commentary for Restless? That's the
one I really really want to hear.
[> [> [>
Re: Ooh me, me -- Slain, 16:32:30 04/18/02 Thu
I didn't know there was going to be Restless commentary - I'll have a look.
Is Buffy Anti-relationship? *Spoilers* --
Charlemagne, 20:26:19 04/16/02 Tue
*stakes Spike*
Oh sorry that's the new way I open every post...muhahaha.
It has occured to me on this particular show that the relationship is something that is one of the
most visible targets for the First Evil and Wolfram and Heart senoir partners (The Anti-Powers that
Be as I call them) because it burns heroism in one of the few ways that can be done lastingly and
crushing the spirit...which as Buffy shows the ending of life is really not the end.
The Doom of Willow/Tara was I suspect Predestined because at heart the statement in "I Robot You
Jane" was correct and that no relationship really can survive the life that the Scooby's choose to lead.
ME is not doing anything but really following a pattern that has been set up well into the show's
point.
Willow/Tara may have been cute and in fact Tara may have been the love of Willow's life (here's
hoping for the X-man though and Buffy caught in a sappy triangle with him next year-wooh!) but it
wasn't so desperately long ago that we had another pair that was desperately and hopelessly in
love.
That couple was Rupert Giles and Jenny Calender. Jenny may have been "tacked on" but they're
shows together were significant and eventually she was part of the Scooby family with a believable
adult romance before adults could have a romance on Buffy. In the end though Jenny and all the
story-arcs possible with her regarding Rupert and her were sacraficed for the looming spectre of evils
power to destroy in Angelus.
In becomming we saw the culmination of the destruction of Buffy and Angel's love in Becomming and
it was a love never to recover. Like Winston in 1984 when you betray someone you love it is never
truly able to be like it was...a mortal blow.
The destructive pattern followed not so long afterwards with Xander/Cordellia as the next
relationship of the show crashing and burning because W&X of them couldn't help but see what was
under each other's Prom clothes. Alittle less fatal but no less painful. It perhaps was the only
breakup on the show not percipitated by supernatural forces.
Oz/Willow much like Jenny and Giles was an unplanned permanent breakup but the way it played
out was no less traumatic. Joss like with sex=bad (an idea I felt really should have never been
downplayed-not just because I'm a virgin til marriage and it's annoying the Hell out of me-really...it's
not) drills home the idea that cheating is equally so.
Raging animal lust or clothes...you be the judge.
Riley/Buffy was doomed from the start mainly because for all the things they wanted to do with the
character it wasn't the looming spectre of Angel but they weren't able to make Riley real. They
furthermore betrayed his initial roots as well with his own betrayal.
In this case cheating is not only bad but the act of prostitution as well.
Tara/Willow was rather destined to hit this particular bumb because of the fact that they choose to
dwell in a place where magic is plentiful and powerful and seductive. It is after all the Hellmouth
not the Heavenmouth. Willow was eventually bound to find the Necronomicron and ask "why
shouldn't I read it"
Tara on the other hand also was choosing to try and maintain a life on a place where she is basically
a soldier though unknowing. With what happens so often is it any wonder that the Watchers despise
the slayer having friends and relationships?
The only successful relationship on the show thus far has been Nick/Nora Fury and the believability
of that is stretched to the extreme. Then again I don't give it that long since Riley doesn't seem to
have matured...nevermind there.
Just my thoughts.
-Charlie
Human sacrifice: Dawn in The Gift and
Iphigenia at Aulis -- Ixchel, 23:04:22 04/16/02 Tue
Human sacrifice is referred to in many cultures with varying reactions from recoiling in horror to
embracing in desperation. BtVS seems to touch on human sacrifice many times. It could be argued
that Buffy's calling as the Slayer meant the sacrifice of Buffy, the girl, and some of her human life.
Ampata in Inca Mummy Girl is a human sacrifice brought back to life. Angel could be a not-quite-
human sacrifice to save the world (though he is not an innocent sacrifice, Becoming 2). Giles states
in TG that Dawn may have to die to save the world. And Buffy does sacrifice herself to save the
world (TG).
Dawn's situation and attempt to jump in TG reminds me of Iphigenia's sacrifice for the Trojan War.
The Greeks are on their way to Troy, but are stranded in Aulis. Someone has killed a deer sacred to
Artemis and she won't let the winds blow (so that they can set sail). Agamemnon is informed that
his daughter, Iphigenia, must be sacrificed to Artemis to appease her. Iphigenia agrees to die for the
glory of Greece and Agamemnon sacrifices her. Or not, possibly Artemis at the last minute replaces
her with a deer and takes her away to be her priestess.
There are some similar elements with TG. An angry goddess demanding blood (Glory), Giles
(Agamemnon?) states that it may be necessary to sacrifice Dawn (though he has a far better reason
than the Greeks), Dawn (Iphigenia) is willing to jump to save the world, and, at the last minute,
Buffy jumps in Dawn's place (an exchange of sacrifices). Interestingly, when Willow brings Buffy
back she must kill a deer to do so.
The reasons for human sacrifice vary. For the Greeks, a war (about glory and heroic warriors, of
course, and not about money or the fact the Trojans controlled access to the Black Sea) was
important enough to merit it. For the Aztecs, their society was built on it. Their sun/war god (with
the rather innocuous name of Hummingbird-on-the-Left, Huitzilopochtli) needed human hearts each
day so that he could rise and defeat the night. It should be noted that the Aztecs were extremely
protein starved (a huge population and no large domesticated animals) and Huitzilopochtli only
wanted the hearts. In times of stress (like during El Nino years when the seafood supply was
disrupted and massive flooding occurred in normally arid areas) some Andean groups went into a
frenzy of human sacrifice in the vain hope that they could appease angry gods. For Giles, the fate of
all the world was important enough to consider it. Buffy would _not_ consider it, but in the end
made a human sacrifice anyway, herself.
Ixchel
[>
Re: Human sacrifice: Dawn in The Gift and Iphigenia at Aulis -- Rahael, 03:07:13
04/17/02 Wed
More and more Greek parallels where you look! There does seem to be striking resemblances.
And of course, that sacrifice that Agamemnon conducts leads finally to his death, as his vengeful
wife grows distant from him, takes a lover and finally kills him when he returns from the wars.
It's going to be a big year for veangence.
[> [>
Re: Human sacrifice: Dawn in The Gift and Iphigenia at Aulis -- leslie, 10:17:25 04/17/02 Wed
Ah, human sacrifice. A rather repugnant topic on which I have had to do far more research than I
might have liked. A couple of things I would like to point out: first of all, there seems to be a very
strong tendency, when a human sacrifice is performed, to make the victim somehow complicit in his
or her own death--to do it "willingly". Even when the willingness is somehow forced. (The topic that
forced me into this research was an article on the movie The Wicker Man, in which the main
character unknowingly fulfills all the requirements for a willing sacrifice, but doesn't realize until
the very end that he has been manipulated.) In fact, even when it's animals that are being sacrificed,
they usually must do something that indicates that they are willing sacrifices, such as eat some
special food that has been laid on the altar. As a result, self-sacrifice is held up as a noble death, but
the fact is, the sacrifice is done for the sake of the community, which doesn't want to admit that it is
killing someone for its own benefit. There is also generally a tendency to erase the individuality of
the sacrifice--to turn them into "the maiden" rather than "Buffy" or "Iphigenia"--which seems to be
rooted in a fear that a specific individual might be mad about this whole thing and come back to
haunt the sacrificers. The general nobility of self-sacrifice is therefore somewhat suspect upon closer
inspection.
Another interesting aspect of the sacrificial victim is that he or she is usually in some way placed
"outside of society" for the purposes of sacrifice. In other words, there is a tendency to make him or
her an outlaw, whether metaphorically or literally. "Oh, it's okay to kill him, he's a criminal
anyway." (Doesn't bode well for Spike....) (And if any of you know anything about Lindow Man, the
British bog body that is probably a sacrificed druid, my contention is that he is wearing a fox-fur
armband to label him as an outlaw, as foxes are generally considered outlaw animals in Celtic--and
many other-- cultures). The sacrificial animal's eating of food on the altar is also sometimes
interpreted as stealing the god's food, for instance, and therefore the animal must be executed for the
offense. According to Caesar, the ancient Celts preferred "criminals and prisoners of war" as human
sacrifices--again, people who are outside society or who are Other, "not us." In terms of Iphigenia,
and other classic virgin sacrifices, unmarried women are also nonpersons in ancient Greek culture
and are to that extent outside of society. This seems to correspond with both Buffy's ambiguous
relationship to the central authority figures of society (from Principal Snyder to the Mayor to the
Sunnydale police force), as well as Dawn's Keyness: "there's no-one in there."
The thing about Iphigenia, however, is that in the versions where she is replaced at the last minute
by a deer, she herself is whisked away to Taurus to become a priestess of Artemis who herself
performs human sacrifice--any stranger who turns up on their shore is sacrificed, and she is then put
in the position of being supposed to sacrifice her brother Orestes (this is in the play "Iphigenia in
Taurus" by Euripedes). So the sacrificed becomes the sacrificer. Watch out.
[> [> [>
Isn't there a central character in the Whicker Man called Willow? -- Rahael, 10:34:34
04/17/02 Wed
I generally avoid anything vaguely scary, but its a seminal film.
Any connections to the BtVS character?
[> [> [> [>
Re: Isn't there a central character in the Whicker Man called Willow? -- leslie, 11:19:34 04/17/02 Wed
Willow in the movie is the voluptuous daughter of the innkeeper, and basically a sacred prostitute.
So, no, I don't think she's that relevant to our Willow!
[> [> [>
Sacrifice of the Outsider -- Ixchel, 11:07:03 04/17/02 Wed
leslie, excellent points.
Regarding the willingness of the victim. I believe the Incas drugged the sacrifice on their way to
leaving him/her (usually a young "perfect" person, a suitable emissary to the gods) to freeze to death
up high in the mountains. This may have been part of sending wives, concubines and servants into
the afterlife with an important man (whether a pharaoh or a Viking warlord) as well (a form of
human sacrifice and a way for such a man to be sure his household was invested in his wellbeing). A
drugged sacrifice would be compliant, willing (and not inclined to do any unseemly screaming and
struggling).
Another aspect of the intended sacrifice being placed outside of society is him/her being regarded as
holy or special (treated and fed well). IIRC, the Incas did this. And the Egyptians treated some
animal sacrifices similarly (the Apis bull and cats sacrificed as messengers to Bastet).
Dawn (and Buffy) seem to fit these ideas of being sacred, perfect and special.
Another interesting point about Iphigenia in Taurus meeting Orestes is that this is when the cycle of
vengeance begun with her "sacrifice" is finally ended.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [>
Re: Sacrifice of the Outsider -- leslie,
12:39:44 04/17/02 Wed
When I first started researching human sacrifice, it was partly because it is such a contentious issue
in Celtic Studies. Caesar's comment about the Celts sacrificing "criminals and prisoners of war"
suggests the possibility that, since the judicial and priestly functions were frequently carried out by
the same person in early Indo-European society, this "human sacrifice" was actually a form of capital
punishment. However, I have to say that the more I read about the subject, the more I have come to
the conclusion that capital punishment is actually a form of human sacrifice. The victim--usually a
member of a minority or other "outsider"--is set aside in a guarded, enclosed space, fed and clothed
for a period of time at society's expense, and killed in order to placate the gods of "law and order."
Order. Sacrificed to placate Chaos and prevent him from overrunning the world.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sacrifice of the Outsider -- Ixchel, 15:58:33 04/17/02 Wed
That's interesting. It does beg the question, what else could early societies do with criminals and
prisoners of war? They had no means to contain (not to mention feed) them indefinitely, so if the
priests said the gods wanted them...? In some societies (Native American) through an initiation
process a prisoner of war could become a member of that society, but how could they be truely sure
they weren't sheltering an enemy? The Aztecs actually had wars (called "flower" wars, I believe
flowers were symbolic of blood for them) for the sole purpose of obtaining prisoners of war for
sacrifice.
I think I understand your point about capital punishment. A ritual providing the illusion of control
in a chaotic world?
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sacrifice of the Outsider -- Arethusa, 16:15:28 04/17/02 Wed
Sold them into slavery? I seem to remember in an Ancient World History course that the Greeks and
Romans did, although the Romans seemed to do a lot of assimilating too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Good point, Arethusa. -- Ixchel, 17:26:49 04/17/02 Wed
Greeks and Romans did have a need for many slaves and had a thriving slave trade. Your point
about assimilation is actually (IMHO) one of the more positive things about the Roman Empire
(though maybe everyone wouldn't agree).
I was thinking more along the lines of the Celts, or less organized groups that didn't have huge
industries (mines, etc.) that required many slaves. Basically, they wouldn't have much use for them.
These groups could have passed prisoners onto Greeks or Romans (during their dominate periods),
but there is the difficulty of transporting slaves (especially prisoners of war, who may prove
intractable).
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Good point, Arethusa. -- leslie,
09:45:12 04/18/02 Thu
Actually, the Celts did have lots of slaves (as did most European cultures at the time); the most
famous Celtic slave, of course, being St. Patrick, a British Celt who was captured and sold into
slavery in Ireland; after he escaped and became a priest, he felt called to return to his former captors
and convert them. But this was in the fifth century C.E. in Britain, Ireland, and France. The Celtic
culture originally arose in the Salzkammergut area of what is now Austria and Bavaria around the
eighth century B.C.E., and the Celts' power came from two sources: iron-working and salt mining. So
they had the mines! At the same time, though, remember that we're talking about relatively small
numbers of people--battles would be between armies numbering in the hundreds, not the thousands,
because battles were largely between tribes, not nations, and prisoners of war would be people who
were actually captured, not whole armies surrendering. "War" was more along the order of what we
might now call "raiding." Or, for that matter, "cattle rustling."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks, leslie. Some thoughts... -- Ixchel, 10:21:41 04/18/02 Thu
Wasn't St. Patrick half Roman, or a romanized Celt (Patrick is from Latin)? Or am I imagining
this?
Even though slavery was common throughout Europe, I would think the magnitude of slavery would
be far greater in ,say, the Roman Empire (which had a more structured environment for maintaining
slaves). In mentioning mines I was thinking of something I had read once about difficult slaves in
Roman times being threatened with being sold to the (silver?) mines. Apparently this was something
to be feared.
Good point about the wars (between tribal groups). OTOH an entire Roman legion (fighting against
Germanic tribes) disappeared in the German forests, presumably they were all killed. Also, when
taking captives, women and children may have been preferred to men, because though you may get
more work out of a man, he would have been harder to control. So after a battle, you may still have
had the problem of too many adult male captives to manage. If you let them go, they would probably
fight you another day. This is not a moral reason for human sacrifice, but it may explain it.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Thanks, leslie. Some thoughts... -- leslie, 10:39:29 04/18/02 Thu
Patrick was a post-Roman Celt, from an area of Britain that had been under Roman influence but
was in the process of becoming Welsh. His family, according to his _Confessio_, was Christian, but he
was not particularly religious as a youth. The extremely slim evidence that we have for him as a
historical figure suggests that he came from a "native" family that had held some kind of official
position in the Roman administration. Patrick's Latin quite frankly sucks, so he was certainly not
schooled in the language; he may have spoken some form of it in religious contexts, but he probably
spoke some version Old Welsh as a youth and certainly had to speak Old Irish during his time in
Ireland, whether as a slave or as a missionary.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks again, leslie. I guess that's why I was confused. -- Ixchel, 13:25:46 04/18/02
Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sacrifice of the Outsider -- anom, 22:03:00 04/17/02 Wed
"However, I have to say that the more I read about the subject, the more I have come to the
conclusion that capital punishment is actually a form of human sacrifice. The victim--usually a
member of a minority or other "outsider"--is set aside in a guarded, enclosed space, fed and clothed
for a period of time at society's expense, and killed in order to placate the gods of "law and order."
Order. Sacrificed to placate Chaos and prevent him from overrunning the world."
Wow. I think you've really got something there, leslie. It seems sometimes as if when certain crimes
are committed, it matters more to society that *someone* be killed for them than that the actual
killer be executed. But if it's the wrong person, safety/order is an illusion, & law is perverted.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sacrifice of the Outsider -- vandalia, 08:14:21 04/18/02 Thu
Wow. I think you've really got something there, leslie. It seems sometimes as if when certain
crimes are committed, it matters more to society that *someone* be killed for
them than that the actual killer be executed. But if it's the wrong person, safety/order is an illusion,
& law is perverted.
But the 'sacrifice' of the prisoner maintains the illusion of safety/order/rule of law. Just as the
bombing of Afghanistan maintains the illusion that the U.S. is able to defend itself against surprise
attacks on its home soil, regardless of whether or not those being bombed had anything to do with it.
The illusion is all, don't look behind the curtain, nothing to see here, move along. We are the Great
and Powerful Oz, because if it turns out we're just being led by frightened old men, what will happen
to us?
Wonderful points, both of you.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Sacrifice of the Outsider -- anom, 10:17:33 04/18/02 Thu
"The illusion is all, don't look behind the curtain, nothing to see here, move along. We are the Great
and Powerful Oz, because if it turns out we're just being led by frightened old men, what will happen
to us?"
Well, that's just it, of course. It'll happen to us in spite of our illusion that it won't--or actually,
because of the illusion, since the only possibility of preventing it requires giving up the
illusion & dealing w/the reality. In fact, maintaining the illusion in the ways you described
accelerates the undermining of safety/order, since some of the people who have to deal w/the reality
of unjust executions/bombing--or their survivors--figure that if they're likely to be punished whether
they've done anything or not, they might as well do something. Especially if the frightened old men
(or their equivalent) on their side are selling them an illusion in which we're the bad guys,
the outsiders whose sacrifice can preserve their safety/order.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Sacrifice of the Outsider -- Etrangere, 13:43:37 04/17/02 Wed
>>Dawn (and Buffy) seem to fit these ideas of being sacred, perfect and special.
Yes, Glory says the Key has to be pure when her minions bring her Spike. Spike can't be the key,
can't sacrified (though we see him falling from the same place than Buffy) because he is not that...
(poor spike ;)
Makes me think of Angelus blood shedding to awaken Acathla. "Someone isn't worthy" :). Did
Angelus have to become Angel back to be a "pure" sacrifice ?
[> [> [> [> [>
Pure sacrifices -- Ixchel, 16:10:31 04/17/02 Wed
Poor Spike, I don't think he would've minded being a sacrifice to save Dawn or Buffy.
Dawn is very much a "perfect" sacrifice in the Inca model (young, blemishless, sinless and a virgin).
In some cultures, anything less would offend the gods. Glory did seem offended by Spike.
Interesting idea about Angel. That Willow's resouling spell may have been necessary? That the
sacrifice of _Angel_ (souled) was required to close the vortex? That using Angelus would have been
more a justified execution and it _had_ to be a true sacrifice for Buffy?
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Seems cruel but plausible... -- Scroll, 14:50:03 04/19/02 Fri
Never really thought about Angel being the pure sacrifice Buffy needed to give to the gods, but it
makes sense now that you bring it up. I've always just watched Becoming for the romantic tragedy,
but now you've made me think! Damnit!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The Buffyverse is cruel, whether by design or indifference... -- Ixchel, 17:47:09 04/19/02
Fri
Well, of course, by ME design, but (within the story) can it be viewed as the cruelty of capricious
"gods" or the cruelty of a random universe?
Rahael and Sophist have some brilliant thoughts on this under the "Spike, Joyce and Dawn" thread
(in the archives now).
As to a possibly sacrificial nature of Becoming 2, Whistler does seem to hint at the fact that Buffy's
task will be harder than killing Angelus should be.
Sorry about making you think. I'll try not to do it again. ;)
Ixchel
[> [>
Vengeance and tragedy -- Ixchel, 10:25:51 04/17/02 Wed
There is a definite link there.
Thanks Rahael, all your (and Sophist's) excellent thoughts regarding Greek tragedy inspired
me.
I was wondering why I kept thinking of Iphigenia and I realized she reminded me of Dawn.
Ixchel
[>
Some thoughs on Sacrifices and new orders of the world -- Etrangere, 11:45:28 04/17/02
Wed
Not very long ago, I had a class in Anthropology of Religions about Sacrifices.
Useless to precise, I kept thinking about the Gift all along.
One interresting thing was that most sacrifices seek to instaure (or re-instaure) a fundamental order
of the world, between the great opositions, like the human part from the divine part of the world.
The class was especially refering to Promotheus' sacrifice of the beef to the gods.
Dawn's sacrifice was about that. Her blood was the key to open all dimensions, she was to break the
barriers between the worlds, she was thus bringing chaos and her death was the way to keep the
world in order.
Is the sacrifice of Dawn a way to keep the divine (Glory) separate from the human (Ben) as we're
seeing them growing more alike one another ? And is Buffy's death as effective in that or does her
death mean actually that the divine and the human are not as separate as they used to be. Seeing
that the divine is also te monstruosity in Glory, and seeing what s6 is about, we might think the
barriers aren't the same anymore as what they used to be, the sacrifice of Buffy instead of Dawn
altered the order of the world.
Another interresting stuff about this, was the place of dismembering in the primordial sacrifices
myth. From Tiamat to Ymir and through the sacrifice of Purusa, the sacrifice and the dismembering
of a primordial being to create the world / society from it is a very common tale. That's not linked to
the Gift, ofcourse, but to Bargaining, where the Buffybot is teared apart while the demon announces
grimly the beginning of a new world - and isn't he somehow right ?
What about the thematics of replacement in the Sacrifice. As you pointed out in the other myth you
mentionned (Iphigenia), the idea of someone replacing the sacrified at the last minute isn't new. We
find it in a very central place in the Bible too, with the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, and ofcourse,
ins't the sacrifice of Jesus Christ meant to "replace" the suffering of every sinners ?
This is interresting because in both cases it asks the moral question behind the sacrifice, like Buffy
says : I can't live in a world that asks me to do that.
Still some prices has to be made. Why ?
[> [>
Re: Some thoughs on Sacrifices and new orders of the world -- Caroline, 12:51:04
04/17/02 Wed
You bring up some very interesting points. In many of the myths I've read, the sacrifice seems to be
about purification in some way. The group did something 'wrong' and try to appease the gods. They
went against nature and think that sacrifice is the way to come back into accord with nature. (I'm
not commenting on the moral position here, just the actions) The Incas are certainly a good example
of this with more sacrifices being made when weather was unfavorable for agriculture and I'm sure
there are other examples in Celtic and other myths.
But on a more personal level, I think that sacrifice is about the death and transformation of
something undesirable within oneself. Buffy would not have wanted to live with herself is she had let
Dawn die. It would have gone against the natural order, the internal idea that she had of the world
and her place in it. She could not have lived with the guilt. She had sworn to protect Dawn and had
failed, even though the task may well have been beyond her resources and Buffy could not accept
that. By killing herself, she saved Dawn and the world and prevented any guilt she would have felt if
she had not saved Dawn. So she remained pure of heart and mind.
So in each of the examples above, the protagonists involved see themselves as somehow out of step
with nature or their view of the natural order of the world and must commit an otherwise
unthinkable act to restore balance. That is the way to unify the oppositions that have been set up.
I somehow feel that I've answered you questions very adequately but I'll think more about it. Also,
great post Ixchel, you and Ete make me think that there will be much significant stuff coming up for
Dawn next season.
[> [> [>
Intriguing idea about restoring balance, Caroline. -- Ixchel, 17:37:47 04/17/02 Wed
I meant to thank you for your ideas in my post below.
I completely agree with your thoughts on Buffy and Dawn.
Interesting that you said you're not making a moral statement about human sacrifice. I hope I didn't
come across as - human sacrifice, yay! :)
Ixchel
[> [>
Sacrifice, self-sacrifice and remaking the world order. -- Ixchel, 17:15:18 04/17/02
Wed
Sublime post, Etrangere.
Perhaps, premodern people could not conceptualize their relative insignificance in the cosmos. They
could not perceive randomness and thought every positive or negative action of "the universe" was
intended for them (a blessing or a curse). So they were constantly trying to understand the rules to
obtain some sense of control over their lives. If one of these rules is basically that nothing comes
without a price, then sacrifice can be explained. A mindset of - the gods feed us (crops grow or don't
grow through their will) so we _must_ feed the gods (animals mostly and sometimes humans). My
post about Iphigenia was inspired by a discussion Rahael, Sophist and I had regarding something
similar (a few threads ago). Rahael brilliantly pointed out the "capricious gods" aspect of the
Buffyverse (which makes sense since ME is quite cruel to its creations) and its relation to Greek
tragedy. Sophist (equally brilliantly) pointed out the use of demons, etc. as metaphors for the cruelty
of an uncaring universe. I can't really do justice to their thoughts (they're in LittleBit's "Spike, Joyce
and Dawn" thread, way to the right).
In many cultures all throughout the world (past mostly, but present also) there is an idea of sacrifice
as something (probably precious or necessary to you) you give to the gods. But the idea of self-
sacrifice (Jesus, etc.) is one where you give the gods _yourself_. A radical idea indeed.
Perhaps Buffy remade the order of her world through her self-sacrifice. Changed the rules somehow
by refusing to sacrifice Dawn. She still must obey in a sense (she must close the portal), but she bent
the rules. Maybe (as Ete says) the barriers, the structure of the Buffyverse has been transformed by
her action. Good point about S6 as an argument for this.
I like Ete's idea about the dismemberment of the Buffybot. This is, in a sense, a dismemberment of
Buffy (through her effigy) and a new world made from her body (her sacrifice?). So far, this world
(S6) is fairly harsh, but perhaps that is a consequence of the "birth" of a new world?
About Bargaining, in Willow's resurrection spell she spills blood and later vomits a snake. In times
of crisis (or important circumstances) the ancient Maya nobility would perform ritual bloodletting
onto pieces of paper and then burn the paper. They would be trying to see a vision serpent (helped
along their quest sometimes by using the hallucinogenic Datura), from whose mouth their ancestors
would appear and give council. Maybe it's a stretch, but it's an interesting inversion.
Ixchel
[> [> [>
Re: Sacrifice, self-sacrifice and remaking the world order. -- Arethusa, 18:44:42
04/17/02 Wed
So Dawn's death would be a pagan human sacrifice and Buffy's death would be a Christian self-
sacrifice. Therefore Buffy's would be the "good" action, opening up the possibility for redemption for
her "followers," the Scoobies.
(Not that there's anything wrong with paganism. Just following the train of thought.)
[> [> [> [>
Not necessarily, but that's certainly a valid perception. -- Ixchel, 19:19:57 04/17/02
Wed
I'm not religious, but there are definite parallels (self-sacrifice, dying, resurrection) to Christian
ideas.
Ixchel
[>
Agamemnon and Clytemnestra -- Sophist, 10:44:14 04/18/02 Thu
I haven't had time to work this out, but I'm wondering if we can see this myth with Glory as
Agamemnon (ready to sacrifice her key/child); Dawn as Iphigenia; and Buffy/Giles as
Clytemnestra/Aegisthes killing Agamemnon. The roles seem to fit, but the timing of Agamemnon's
death is way off. Hmm.
Oh. And maybe Tara as Cassandra ("you're a killer"). Hmm again.
[> [>
Re: Agamemnon and Clytemnestra -- Ixchel, 15:02:24 04/18/02 Thu
Interesting idea, Sophist. The timing may not be important, in a discussion in the "Eros and Psyche"
thread (Buffy and Inanna) Caroline states that such comparisons may be useful though the myth
narrative is not followed completely.
I really like Tara as Cassandra (the prophetic "killer" statement everyone ignores). Especially since
after the brainsuck she was, in a way, Glory's (Agamemnon's) slave. Although, I _really_ don't like
the idea of Buffy (Clytemnestra) killing her.
Ixchel
[> [> [>
Re: Agamemnon and Clytemnestra -- Sophist, 15:16:24 04/18/02 Thu
As I recall the story (and it's dangerous going off memory), Aegisthes is the one who actually killed
Agamemnon, just as Giles killed Ben/Glory. Clytemnestra only brought Agamemnon to the bath. But
I must admit that Buffy as Clytemnestra is awful to consider, though the human passion in each (at
least as to the child) is similar. Needless to say, I see no parallels to Agamemnon sleeping with
Cassandra, nor to Clytemnestra's tit for tat adultery with Aegisthes.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Agamemnon and Clytemnestra -- leslie, 16:25:25 04/18/02 Thu
But Clytemnestra's adultury with Aegisthes is not simply tit-for-tat--she spends the entire Trojan
War sitting at home and brooding over the fact that her husband sacrificed their daughter. The
murder of Agamemmnon is revenge for his killing Iphigenia, for which Clytemnestra cannot forgive
him. (So let's link this whole thread to the current Angel discussion, eh?)
There's actually a rather interesting sex-role dynamic going on in this whole story. In a society in
which women were literally worth nothing, Clytemnestra puts her love for her daughter over her
loyalty to her husband, which makes her about the most dangerous thing an ancient Greek can
imagine. When she kills her husband for the death of her daughter, her son, Orestes, is advised by
the Delphic Oracle to kill *her* in revenge. However, this advice puts Orestes in bad with the
Erinyes (the Furies) who are devoted to punishing matricides. Finally, Orestes' case is argued before
a Supreme Court of Olympian gods--he is caught between what he owes to his mother versus what
he owes to his father--and it is finally decided, with the swing vote of Athena, that loyalty to the
father is more important, on the somewhat peculiar argument that the father's sperm solely
*creates* the child, while the mother contributes nothing but a warm, dark womb in which the fetus
develops. This not only frees Orestes from the attentions of the Erinyes, but it also reframes
Clytemnestra's devotion to her daughter as completely mistaken, since by this argument, Iphigenia
is not Clytemnestra's "flesh and blood" but a short-term womb tenant.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Agamemnon and Clytemnestra -- lachesis, 13:43:40 04/19/02 Fri
Good point about the sex-dynamic in the plays. It makes an interesting counterpoint to the theme of
vengeance vs. judgement which runs through them. The three plays show the increasingly vicious
cycle of vengeance which engulfs the family, and the worsening personal pain of those who exact
it.
I'd just point out that Athena's judgement is based on a 'technicality.' Although this peculiar idea
was part of Greek medical thought, it was incongruous in the heroic world of tragedy, and while the
audience might have believed it, I doubt they would have found it intuitively appealing.
Vengeance is a very human thing, something we can all understand even if we don't agree with it. I
think the point of Athena's judgement is not that it 'solves' the problem, or really makes everything
ok. Unspeakable (unforgiveable?) acts have been committed. What the judgement does is offer an
end, a way out of the never-ending cycle of vengeance, which has widened throughout the trilogy,
and might do so indefinitely.
For me, the message of this trilogy is that vengeance may be justified, demanded, 'right' but it does
not work. It feeds nothing but itself. And so, although there may be no 'morally' defensible position,
the right action is to decide. And the correct decision is the one which stops the cycle. It may be
based on a 'technicality' or on pragmatism, it may not feel 'right' but having seen the consequences of
vengeance unleashed, we will accept it as infinitely better than the alternative.
Buffy's makes decisions in her fight with the demon world, rather than being motivated by
vengeance. When she is motivated by vengeance, however justified (I'm thinking Faith) her actions
go awry. Greek tragedy is not 'moral' in the modern sense of the word. Instead, I've always thought
of it as valuing flexibility, and the importance of deciding about each problem as it arises, which are
things I also see emphasised on Buffy.
Now that I've started thinking about this, I'm also seeing parallels with the portrayal of the law as a
blunt instrument. And tragedy in TG, with the chorus of the mad and all. But I'll stop now before I
get silly. What was I trying to say? That forgiveness is not the only way out. And nor is being 'right.'
Sometimes you just have to make a decision.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Law as Blunt Instrument? Anya's Frying Pan -- Scroll, 14:41:03 04/19/02 Fri
Don't have any coherent thoughts, just babbling... But your phrase "law as a blunt instrument"
reminds me of Anya and her frying pans and baseball bats. And Anyanka's heavy-handed attempts
at 'justice' with over-the-top wishes/spells that don't really fix wrongs so much as make a mess!
:)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Law as Blunt Instrument? Anya's Frying Pan -- lachesis, 16:02:23 04/19/02 Fri
LOL!! I hadn't thought of that as I was writing...but yeah! Kinda the ultimate blunt
instrument...
And thanks for reminding me that vengeance can be 'just.' Maybe that's why its Athena in the play
(goddess of wisdom) and not Zeus, who usually dispenses justice (in the form of the
thunderbolt!)
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Excellent points, lachesis. -- Ixchel, 21:31:11 04/19/02 Fri
The idea of vengeance (no matter how righteously conceived) destroying those who engage in it
and/or its generally futility seems to run through BtVS.
"Vengeance is never sated, Buffy." - Giles (Pangs)
Ixchel
Is this a Zoo? BTVS notes from DMP and
Dead Things -- neaux, 08:39:58 04/17/02 Wed
I'm sure this was mentioned before but I just noticed it last night after watching DMP and Dead
Things..
BTVS is turning into a Zoo. And it seems to beg the question.. Is Buffy an Animal?
Now before someone yells out "Animality" aka Mortal Kombat on me.. lemme tell you of all the
animal references in these 2 episodes..
Buffy is surrounded by animals in the DMP and not just the Chicken and Cow swirlies. Posters of
motivation are scattered throughout the workplace depicting ostriches. yes ostriches.. and lions (if I
remember correctly) and Alligators!
Kinda weird but you can also extract snippets of dialogue that are very animalistic.
Xander and Dawn playing "Go Fish".
Dawn and her Kitties t-shirt.
Amy asks Willow about going "Cold Turkey"
Xander hurting from his "Funky Monkey" Dance.
maybe I'm just pulling these out of the blue to support my claim.. but look at Xander.. He Scarfed 2
DMP burgers like a freakin' animal!
How bout Warren and the other 2? Arent they like a pride of lions. Ok maybe that's a stretch.. but
still Andrew and Johnathon seem to wait for Warren's move before they act.
But most importantly at the beginning of Dead things, Spike calls Buffy an animal. Buffy denies that
she is..
what if she really is?? could she have come back as more animal than human.. something that Spike
could actually hurt..
[>
Re: Is this a Zoo? BTVS notes from DMP and Dead Things -- Slain, 12:44:31 04/17/02
Wed
I always thought SMG's hair was kind of lionesque - she must really be a cat. Dawn is therefore also
a cat, but a smaller cat. Spike is a dog.
[>
Re: Is this a Zoo? BTVS notes from DMP and Dead Things -- Slain, 12:46:56 04/17/02
Wed
I always thought SMG's hair was kind of lionesque - she must really be a cat. Dawn is therefore also
a cat, but a smaller cat. Spike is a dog.
[>
Re: Is this a Zoo? BTVS notes from DMP and Dead Things -- Ixchel, 22:17:28 04/17/02
Wed
Interesting, neaux.
I once read somewhere (I'm sorry I can't remember where) a list of all the animal references in BtVS.
Monkeys, cats and dogs have the highest occurrence frequencies (IIRC) and shrimp get mentioned
quite a few times as well.
Animals are referred to all the time it seems, though we rarely see actual animals (especially since
MKF went missing).
Ixchel
"Frailty," Buffy and a darker
look at slaying (spoilers through "Normal Again"--longish)) -- Dichotomy,
16:18:26 04/17/02 Wed
“(Warning: the following contains spoilers for the film “Frailty” now in theaters. I don’t want to ruin
it for anyone, but its subject matter parallels Buffy’s in such striking ways, that I simply could not
resist comparing them. I will try my best not to reveal the particulars of the ending. “Frailty” is dark,
disturbing and will no doubt piss off some people, but it’s excellent. Go see it now!)
We all know it by heart: “In every generation there is a Chosen One. She alone will stand against the
vampires, the demons and the forces of darkness. She is the Slayer.”
In the beginning there was “Welcome to the Hellmouth” (not counting the movie, of course) and from
that moment on, we’ve pretty much accepted that this is so: Slaying is Buffy's duty. She kills evil
things. Black & white. Cut and dried. Then the gray crept in. We began to see that Buffy was more
than a two-dimensional superhero and that those around her were not so easy to categorize.
In “Frailty”, a widower tell his young sons that they, as a family, have been chosen by God to slay
demons. But this calling is in question from the beginning. The story of this supposed demon slayer
is told in flashback by the now adult eldest son, Fenton Meiks (Matthew McConaughey). Fenton goes
to FBI headquarters to tell the agent in charge of the Hand of God murders that he knows the
identity of this monster: His younger brother Adam.
Fenton reveals that when the boys were about 12 and 9, their seemingly normal, loving dad (played
by Bill Paxton, who also directed) one night woke them with the news that an angel of God had
spoken to him about this calling. After 20-some years of silence, Fenton can no longer keep this
horrible secret.
Accepting a calling
From Masq’s episode guide: “Buffy is not sure she can accept the negative consequences of being a
slayer. Slaying has gotten her kicked out of school, caused her to lose all of her friends, and
compelled her to constantly fight for her life. Furthermore, she has been unable to explain any of this
to anyone because she has to keep it a secret. Giles responds that the slayer is needed more than
ever, because supernatural events at the Hellmouth are on the increase and will soon culminate in a
crisis (the Harvest).
In “Frailty,” Fenton and Dad have very different feelings about being chosen. Poor Fenton, like the
early Buffy, tries to ignore his “calling.” But Dad insists that an apocolypse is coming and that they
and others like them must destroy the demons already on earth. (He also differentiates “destroying”
from “killing”.) Furthermore, they can’t tell anyone else, because the angel told Dad that innocents
would die if this happened. Dad accepts his calling without question. He also has obviously lost his
mind.
Fade to gray
While we as viewers pretty much accepted Buffy’s divine or preordained need to kill demons from the
get-go (and mostly still do) there were hints that the Buffyverse was not so black and white. Take
this exchange between Buffy and Giles in “Lie to Me”:
Buffy: Nothing's ever simple anymore. I'm constantly trying to work it out. Who to love or hate. Who
to trust. It's just, like, the more I know, the more confused I get.
Giles: I believe that's called growing up.
Then later:
Buffy: ... Does it (life) get easy?
Giles: What do you want me to say?
Buffy: Lie to me.
Giles: Yes, it's terribly simple. The good guys are always stalwart and true, the bad guys are easily
distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats, and, uh, we always defeat them and save the day.
No one ever dies, and everybody lives happily ever after.
Buffy: Liar.
Shades of gray become ever more apparant during the series’ course. Increasingly, Buffy and/or the
Scoobies must kill somewhat sympathetic demons, like Impata the Inca Mummy Girl, whose
existence is a threat. These dilemmas get increasingly complicated when the newly resouled Angel is
killed, and later, when they must consider sacrificing Dawn.
Fenton is in a similar position: Who can he trust? What should he do? When Dad shows him the list
of those God wants him to destroy, Fenton is astonished: “These are real people, dad!” He knows he
must prevent the killings somehow, but love for his father stops him just before he goes to the
sheriff. He wants to protect his father, who, through all this, continues to be a loving parent and
quite lucid. He never really appears to be, well, crazy. He doesn’t seem like a “black hat.”
The changing face of the demon
Now the nice thing about the Buffyverse, at least early on, is that despite what Giles says, the “black
hats” really are mostly bumpy and fangy at some point. Easy to spot, easy to kill. Who wouldn’t
hesitate to squash a giant praying mantis or dust a bloodsucking fiend? But then we begin to see
more human faces of evil. Mayor Wilkins was one example (that is, until he turned into a giant
snake) and more recently the Troika. They’re human but capable of horrible deeds. Not demons, but
evil. They should be stopped, but even with solid proof of wrongdoing, Buffy can’t kill them.
In Fenton’s world, things are even more muddled. One night, to his horror, Dad actually brings home
the first of his “demons”. After tracking her down and hitting her on the head with a pipe, he brings
her, bound and gagged, but conscious and alive, to their barn. She looks like any other woman. While
the boys watch, Dad then removes his work gloves and touches the “demon” so that they may see her
evil deeds. His face is filled with horror and revulsion during the contact, and Adam insists that he
too has seen the demon within. All Fenton sees is a terrified young woman. Dad is the more
frightening creature.
Death of Innocence
While Dad’s calling mirrors Buffy’s, Fenton’s experience seems more akin to her loss of innocence.
Buffy’s carefree days of cheerleading and shopping are cut short when she is called. Furthermore,
she has to live with the fact that she will probably die an untimely death and then does, twice. Her
first real love, Angel, humiliates and tortures her and to top things off, she has to kill him just as his
soul is returned. Buffy has to deal with more than any young woman should have to endure.
Fenton, too, has his innocence violently yanked from him. Not only is Fenton aware of what his
father is doing, but he is forced to watch him kill the “demons” with an ax and chop them into pieces.
Then he and Adam must help bury them in the rose garden behind their home. Worse still, Dad
expects Fenton to become increasingly involved in these killings, first acting as a decoy to distract
the “demon”, then actually dealing the fatal ax blow. But Fenton simply can’t bring himself to
kill.
Losing my religion
Fenton and Buffy also begin to question the edict from the all powerful. Buffy continues to fulfill her
slaying duties, but she openly defies the Watcher’s Council in “G2” and “Checkpoint.” When Giles
tells her Dawn must die if Glory starts the ritual, Buffy flat out tells him it ain’t gonna happen. Who
do the watchers think they are forcing her to undergo a trials and tests, withholding information she
needs, telling the Slayer what to do? What kind of divine power would make her sacrifice her
sister?
Similarly, Fenton tries to defy his father. He threatens to tell, he tries to sway Adam, he even runs
away, but his love and loyalty to Dad always win out. Because Fenton can’t bring himself to hate his
father, he decides to work up a big hate for God instead. What sort of God would ask a man and his
young sons to kill and mutilate people?
Willing soldiers
Meanwhile little brother Adam wholeheartedly embraces the idea. He seems quite eager to please
his father and is thrilled that they are going to be like “superheroes” for God, complete with
“magical” weapons (the pipe, ax and work gloves). He is willing to believe that all these normal
looking people are actually demons. Fenton repeatedly tries to make him see that Dad is a murderer
and begs him to run away with him. But Adam places all his trust in his father and will have none of
it. He instead feels sorry that Fenton can’t be joyful they’ve been chosen.
Adam’s attitude brings to mind Faith, also an eager soldier in the war on all creatures bumpy. She
not only accepts her calling like Adam, she gets a rush from the killing. Her instinct is to assume the
worst, to mistrust: “When are you gonna learn, B? It doesn't matter what kind of vibe you get off a
person. 'Cause nine times out of ten, the face they're showing you is not the real one.” But then Faith
crosses the line: She accidently kills Deputy Mayor Allan.
Death of Innocents
Buffy is mortified, but with the help of a little false bravado, Faith seems to get over this mistake
pretty quickly. While Allan is not exactly innocent, he is definitely not a demon. When Buffy
confronts Faith about it she says : ”I missed the mark last night and I'm sorry about the guy. I really
am! But it happens! Anyway, how many people do you think we've saved by now,
thousands? And didn't you stop the world from ending? Because in my book, that puts you and me in
the plus column.”
Fenton, too, witnesses the killing of an innocent by his father. But this time, Dad, like Buffy, is
sickened by it too. Even though he believes he had to do it, he sees this killing as totally different.
Yet he’s not ready to quit doing God’s bidding. Killing the demons puts him in the plus column,
too.
Chosen or crazy?
She is Chosen, but no one is supposed to know, so Buffy keeps her slayage reasonably secret.
Residents of Sunnydale might be inclined to give her an all-expenses paid vacation to the local
sanitarium if she were free to share.
Which brings us to the notorious “Normal Again.” Some have theorized that the Asylumverse was
her mind’s attempt to help her escape her hard life. Joyce and Hank are together and want to protect
her, and she is not responsible for saving the world (a lot) after all. Others have worried that the
Asylumverse is real and the Slayerverse is indeed an elaborate hallucination. Still others have
posited that both are real. It kept us all guessing and gathering evidence for our viewpoints.
The question of sanity also lingers in “Frailty.” Without giving away too much, more horrible things
happen in the Meiks family. Bottom line--Fenton is certain his father is completely insane. To be
sure, Dad Meiks also would have been hauled away in a little white jacket if he had told others of his
calling. Instead, it is kept under wraps, and Dad continues to destroy demons. But then there’s the
question of Fenton’s sanity. How does one endure unimaginable horrors and come through
unscathed?
There are other parallels between BtVS and “Frailty” I won’t discuss in the interest of not spoiling
the entire movie. Suffice it to say, in the end, both Buffy and “Frailty” leave us with questions:
Where and in whom do we dare place our faith? Is the world just as it seems to those who are
“normal” or are we unwilling or unable to see the evil that is right in front of us?
[>
Re: "Frailty," Buffy and a darker look at slaying (spoilers through "Normal
Again"--longish)) -- spi, 16:28:36 04/17/02 Wed
This movie also got me thinking- heres what I posted at another board.
has anyone seen this movie?
Its a trip. so it got me thinking.
What if Bufy got a vission from THe Powers that BE--- They said that Demons are taking over the
earth. Only that these new demons look like humans. the only way she could tell that they were
demons was that when she touches them that she could see there true demon nature. The powers
said that they would send her vission s with the list of names of who she was supposed to slay. What
would the scoobies say about this?
[> [>
Good point.... -- Dichotomy, 16:13:26 04/18/02 Thu
If there was no way for the Scoobies to actually see that there was a demon within, I think at the
very least they'd be less eager to help. Remember Buffy's roommate Kathy? Buffy just sort of knew
she was a demon, and the rest of the gang thought she'd gone off the deep end. Even after she shows
Willow the demon toenail clippings, Willow sends Buffy to Giles, then calls him, saying that Buffy is
" feeling a little... insane. No, n-not bitchy crazy, more like homicidal maniac crazy." When she
arrives, she is tied up by her friends, and only after Giles analyzes the toenails do they believe
her.
[>
Oops! I meant to credit Pscyhe with all the Buffy quotes. -- Dichotomy, 18:32:45
04/17/02 Wed
[>
Printed off - will see flick and get back to you. Thanks -- shadowkat, 07:58:38 04/18/02
Thu
Restless: Leaving Childhood Behind - Part
I: Willow's Dream -- shadowkat, 18:16:39 04/17/02 Wed
Restless: Leaving Childhood Behind – Part I: Willow’s Dream
Introduction: Leaving Childhood Behind
(* All quotes are taken from Psyche Transcripts.)
Before I start this analysis, a quick apology to those who so astutely pointed out that the Apocalypse
Now reference in Restless is not about Spike or Willow, it’s about Buffy. They are right. It hit me like
a load of bricks this morning on the train while reading Heart of Darkness. In the movie Lt. Willard
is on a boat with a group of companions, one is a seasoned skipper, one a young rookie, one a fairly
intellectual type who appears to read a lot and hates violence, and a farm fed surfer boy. During the
journey, each of these companions is slowly stripped away from him. The first to go is the
young/hellbent rookie. Then - the seasoned captain. Finally Willard is left with two companions – the
intellectual and the surfer boy when he enters Kurtz’s domain, the Heart of Darkness. The
intellectual is killed off. The surfer boy joins Kurtz’s band. Willard is alone at the end with Kurtz
and leaves the jungle more or less alone. (I’m not positive – but I think the surfer boy leaves on the
boat with him after Kurtz is killed, changed by the experience as well. But the surfer boy in no way
aids him in his battle with Kurtz or the darkness. The two are separated and remain more or less
separated even as they travel back down the river together. No longer companions so much as just
fellow travelers.)
It is important to note that two episodes before Restless – in the Yoko Factor – our gang was
successfully split apart by innuendos spread by Spike. The innuendos he uses to split them apart
relate to their life goals, significant others, and insecurities about how each of the others see them.
They only get back together in Primeval because of Spike. He hints to Buffy that he spoke to each of
them and that is the reason they split apart. Spike, however, knows something the Scooby Gang
don’t – that he really had nothing to do with it. As Spike puts it in his speech to Adam - their split is
inevitable. It’s not a matter of if, so much as when. (Edited for length. Yoko Factor, Btvs Season
4)
Spike: It's, uh . . called the Yoko Factor. Don't tell me you've never heard of the Beatles? The point is,
they were once a real powerful group. It's not a stretch to say they ruled the world. And when they
broke up everyone blamed Yoko, but the fact is the group split itself apart, she just happened to be
there. And you know how it is with kids. They go off to college, they grow apart. Way of the
world.
In the beginning of Restless, our gang is still happily ensconced in the comfort of the old days, of
childhood, when they joined forces, defeated the monster and returned hand in hand to their nice
safe haven to unwind. Comfort TV at it’s best. They are in fact ensconced in front of one. Their safe
haven? Buffy’s house. Buffy’s Mom has just provided them with treats. Riley has just left to be
debriefed. Tara, Anya and Spike are nowhere in evidence. It is the “fab four” – without any of those
annoying little things that almost split them apart in the Yoko Factor, such as new friends, jobs, or
annoying significant others that don’t quite fit in with the group. They just joined their essences to
save the world for the hundredth time. They are wired and the scene is reminiscent of the good old
days of high school.
Then they put in the tape – and it is telling that the tape they decide to watch is Apocalypse Now –
which Xander describes as “a gay romp” and Willow describes as “heart-of-darkness-y”. They barely
make it past the FBI Warning label before falling fast asleep.
The dream is often used in film, television, and literature to show us a glimpse of the characters’
interior lives, what they are thinking, what they fear, it also can be used to foreshadow future
events. In Restless – our fab four’s dreams do all of the above, they also depict the strengths and
weaknesses of each of the Gang. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, the fab four
represent four key strengths of the slayer : animus (heart), spiritus (spirit), sophus (intellect), and
maus (hand). It’s a bit like a band: drums, bass, vocals/composition, rhythm piano. You need all four
to make music and you need all four to defeat monsters. But in life, there comes a time in which you
need to define yourself separate from the band and find a way of incorporating all four in yourself –
as the members of The Beatles did with differing results. Apocalypse Now states somewhat the same
thesis – Willard knows from the outset that there will come a time in which he will have to act alone,
he may even have to fight against his companions. Buffy realizes the same thing, but resists this
knowledge, in the same manner that John Lennon may have resisted it for a while.
Part I : Willow’s Dream : A Trial of Spirit
(Warning: there may be Future Spoilers ahead, but I will endeavor to avoid them, partly because I
have now gone off spoilers for good, so know nothing past what was released five weeks back – which
I more or less had already guessed on my own.)
Willow has always fascinated me, partly because she was me in school as my dear old mother
recently reminded me. (Dang! I so wanted it to be Buffy. And something tells me so did Willow.)
Her dream on the surface appears to focus on her fears, both real and imaginary. Yet, when we dig
deeper, we start to see other things, small, apparently inconsequential things come to the
surface.
Let’s start with Tara. Tara is an interesting character – but oddly underdeveloped. It wasn’t until
Season 5, that we ever really got a sense of her. At first I thought this was a fault in the writing,
now I’m beginning to wonder if it might not have been deliberate. She seems to mainly be used as a
guide or to represent the spirit in Restless.
When the dream opens – Willow is in her dorm room writing in Greek on Tara’s back. Someone
recently translated that Greek poem on a thread in B C & S – I can’t remember the exact words –
but if memory serves the poem was about bending one’s love to one’s will. Using magic to make the
world outside similar to the one in your head. This reminds me of that Twilight Zone episode where
a little boy bends reality forcing his family and friends to conform to whatever is in his head. From
the moment Willow meets Tara their relationship is founded on magic. It starts from an erotic power
charge they get from blocking the Gentlemen in Hush. In fact if you closely examine most of the
episodes regarding Willow and Tara - you’ll see them practicing some form of magic. Willow is
usually generating the magic and Tara is guiding or regulating it. Willow was pretty powerful before
Tara – Something Blue certainly proved that. But unregulated. She couldn’t control her magic. Tara
supplies that control. With Tara’s help and possibly moral compass – Willow is able to harness and
control the magical forces within her. Only one problem with this – Willow is starting to rely on Tara
to provide that compass, what happens if the moral compass or guide is stripped away? Will Willow
choke on the emotional overload?
Another thing I’d like to point out about this scene is how they are lying: Tara is on the bed and
Willow is over her, painting on Tara’s bare back. They are side by side, dark and light lying together
hand in hand. Tara is the thought, the light, the order in this relationship while Willow is the dark,
murky, chaotic emotion. Odd. Up until Season 3, Btvs – I always thought of Willow as light. Peel the
onion and we find Vamp Willow underneath in Dopplegangland in Btvs Season 3. Peel it again – and
vengeance demon Willow in Something Blue, peel it again and we get DarkWillow in Tough Love,
Season 5 and again and we get PowerWillow in Bargaining Part I Season 6. In each case, except
Bargaining – Tara’s magic was not present. The struggle here is not so much one between good and
evil as much as one between order and chaos. Before we go on - there are two other mystics who bear
comparing: Giles and Ethan. Ethan worships Chaos. Giles worships order. There is good and evil in
both men. In Halloween (Btvs Season 2), what does Giles say when he discovers the source of the
chaotic magic spell?
Giles: Janus. Roman mythical god.
Willow: What does this mean?
Giles: Primarily the division of self. Male and female, light and dark.
In this episode, we see the path Giles did not take, but his chum did. Ethan Rayne. As he later states
in a New Man (Btvs Season 4):
Ethan: We used to be friends, Ripper. When did all that fall apart?
Giles: The same time you started to worship chaos.
Back to Willow’s dream. She is in her dorm room with Tara, safe. It is dark; they are on the bed.
TARA: I think it's strange. I mean, I think I should worry that we haven't found her name.
WILLOW: Who, Miss Kitty?
TARA: You'd think she'd let us know her name by now.
WILLOW: She will. She's not all grown yet.
TARA: You're not worried?
WILLOW: I never worry here. (Smile) I'm safe here.
TARA: You don't know everything about me.
WILLOW: Have you told me your real name?
TARA: Oh, you know that.(Willow smiles, reaches for something.)(Shot of a paintbrush dipping into
ink jars.) They will find out, you know.(Shot of Willow's face.)About you.
What is fascinating about this scene is who appears to be in control and who really is. Willow is
painting on Tara and appears to be inflicting her will on her submissive partner. Yet Tara is
obliquely pointing out all sorts of troubling things to Willow – something she continues to do
throughout Willow’s dream. Who are you Willow? What is your name? Where are you going? Do you
really think you can stay here forever? Willow believes she’s safe in the room, just as she’s safe in
Buffy’s house, she’s safe with Tara – nothing can hurt her here. But Tara is pointing out that that is
not true. (Following is edited for length.)
(The camera pulls back so we can see Tara is lying face-down on her bed, naked, and Willow is
painting on her back.)
TARA: You've never taken drama before.(Shot of Willow dipping the paintbrush again, moving it
across to Tara's back, which is covered with Greek symbols.) Might miss something important.
WILLOW: I don't wanna leave here.
TARA: Why not?(Willow stands up, looking down at Tara. She turns away toward a dark red curtain.
Walks over to it.)
WILLOW: It's so bright.(Pulls back the curtain to reveal a brightly sunlit desert. The light falls on
Tara, who looks over.)And there's something out there.
Direct reference in the camera work to the light and dark in this scene: Tara is the light and Willow
is the dark. (Willow stands up – looking down at Tara. She turns away toward a dark red
curtain…When she pulls open the curtain – the light falls on Tara.)Willow opens the window – Tara
is exposed to whatever is out there. Willow doesn’t want to leave the room, doesn’t want to leave the
comforting darkness for the blinding light. Tara keeps telling her she has to. You have to exit into
the light. But to do what? To take drama? Drama is class on artifice – role playing. You can hide on
the stage behind a character or role. The audience doesn’t see you. You’re hidden beneath makeup
and costums and wigs. Yet Willow fears her drama class, she is avoiding it. Why? Is it because she’s
already hiding, already role-playing? And who is Tara to Willow? Her lover? Her safe-haven?
The dream shifts to Xander and OZ who are portrayed in a high school setting. (Interesting Willow
has gone back to high school to perform, her nightmare takes place in the high school setting, while
the safe place is in a college dorm room.) Xander makes fun of Willow’s magic to OZ as well as her
relationship to Tara. “So whatcha been doin'? Doing spells? (To Oz) She does spells with Tara.” Then
later: “Sometimes I think about two women doing a spell ... and then I do a spell by myself.” Which
relates back to the Yoko Factor where Spike tells Willow that Xander said her whole witchcraft thing
with Tara was just dabbling. It wasn’t important. He didn’t take her seriously. In the dream Xander
almost appears to making fun of her. And in Season 6 – again we see Xander not really taking the
magic thing all that seriously. In Older and Far Away – he actually suggests Willow try it. And in
Once More With Feeling – he actually does one himself. Neither appears to have a great deal of
respect for magic, although in Xander’s defense he really only plays with it twice: 1.Bewitched,
Bothered & Bewildered and in 2.OMWF. Both times it is the result of relationship insecurities. But
Willow clearly perceives him as not taking her seriously.
Now we come to the most difficult part of the dream to analyze. The play. It is interestingly enough
Death of A Salesman – which is about a salesman who is no longer at the top of his game. He has
been at it too long and the world as well as his family have moved past him. But he refuses to give
up his wonderful past and his own mighty image of himself – even if it means the destruction of his
family and himself in the process. He refuses to see the world as it is. It is an ironic play about the
death of a man’s spirit, his hope. The irony is that it is the salesman who kills his spirit not the
people around him. Willow is in a similar situation – she is in danger of killing her own spirit by her
increased dependence on dark magic to make herself look better, to enhance her own image. She like
Wily Loman in the play is relying on exterior elements to define her self-worth.
In her dream – the play is chaotic. There is no order. Although several characters repeatedly try to
enforce order on the proceedings. Giles – the head honcho of order – as has already been established
in Halloween and A New Man, is the director, but he appears to have no control. Willow attempts to
instill order – by stating that this isn’t Death of A Salesman – there’s no cowboy in this play. But she
is pushed aside and congratulated on her costume. What’s interesting is Willow is the only one not in
costume. Or so she believes. Willow at this point doesn’t see herself as hiding.
Each of the characters in the play can be analyzed on at least two levels – first as archetypes and
second what they reveal about the actual characters:
1.Buffy/Flapper Girl – she has been analyzed on several threads as Sally Bowles from Caberet –but
the transcript describes her as dressed as the lead character in "Chicago": short straight black hair,
short tight black dress. This is a dim blond named Roxy, who killed her lover, got arrested and made
a big splash. Fame through murder. The classic femme fatal archetype, the ditz who gets away with
murder. No brains – but boy can she kill you. I think Buffy actually fits this description far better
than the Sally Bowels image, after all she did kill Angel right after Willow cured him. Who’s having
the dream? Willow. It is through Willow’s subconscious that we see Buffy. Willow has always seen
Buffy as not incredibly bright – remember Willow had to help her make it through high school. Also
Willow may see Buffy as flitting from one man to the next, as being a “flapper” or gay chicky who
just happens to be the hero. The super strong superhero who struggles with school. That cheerleader,
us smart girls loved to hate. Buffy appears in three guises in Willow’s dream: flapper, Buffy her pal,
and the slayer. Also it is Buffy who rips away Willow’s clothes and forces Willow to deal with the
insecure girl underneath. It is also Buffy who tells Willow that her whole family is in the front row
and that Willow is in costume, that her clothes and exterior image aren’t real. “Ohmigod. The place
is packed. Everybody's here! Your whole family's in the front row, and they look really angry. Your
costume is perfect. Nobody's gonna know the truth. You know, about you.”
2.Cowboy Guy/Riley. When Riley shows up in the dream, he tells Willow that he got to play Cowboy
Guy. “Well, you showed up late, or you'd have a better part. (Smiling) I'm Cowboy Guy.” Five lines
later “ I showed up on time, so I got to be Cowboy Guy.” He says this twice. And Riley truly is
“cowboy guy” as an archetype. The stalwart good guy in the white hat – who rushes to the rescue.
John Wayne! Or Dudley Do-Right! With his white horse or rather helicopter, guns that well, don’t
work, and nifty devices. Yet – in the scene with Buffy and Harmony that later follows – he appears
to be forsaking both women. Harmony is sobbing and Buffy is railing at him. (It could as easily be
Spike as Riley in this scene. In fact, oddly enough Riley appears in Willow and Buffy’s dreams but
not Xander and Giles while Spike appears in Xander/Giles but not Willow and Buffy’s – slight
digression I know but worth noting for later. Especially since I think the two characters have been
metaphorically combined somehow in the dreams, with the girls giving Riley dominance, and the
guys giving Spike dominance – well that’s a whole other essay by itself. End digression.) Cowboy
Riley rides into town to find a man - a sales man (read dealer/ read Spike) and that is his sole
purpose, after all he is John Wayne, rid the town of the villain and ride away leaving the women
sobbing in your wake. Cowboy guy.
3. Giles/Director – this is the only time Giles appears in Willow’s dream and here his role is as
director of a play that seems Puppet Show – I can see why she put him in the role in her head – Giles
was the director of the variety show where poor Willow was forced against her will to perform way
back in Season 1. She left that stage in terror just as she leaves this one. Giles also tells her : “Acting
is not about behaving, it's about hiding. The audience wants to find you, strip you naked, and eat you
alive, so hide.” And that’s what Willow is desperately trying to do throughout her dream, hide. Giles,
she sees as the Director of this catastrophe as well as the one advising her what to do: hide. Makes
sense when you think about it. After all wasn’t it Giles who introduced Willow to magic? And isn’t it
through magic that Willow found the means to hide? To change her world by enforcing her own sense
of order upon it?
4. Harmony/Milkmaid and Vampire: Sweet & friendly surface with a biting nasty brat lurking below.
Remember – in Graduation Day Part II – Willow mentioned the fact she’d miss Harmony? And
wanted Harmony to sign her yearbook? Also when she sees Harmony in the alley – she lets down her
guard long enough for Harmony to actually bite her? Harmony is sweet on the surface to Willow but
biting underneath – sweet milkmaid, biting vamp. Here’s her first line in Willow’s dream: “Isn't this
exciting? Our first production! I can't wait till our scene! I love you! Oh! (Hugs Willow. Suddenly
drops the fake friendly act.) Don't step on my cues.”
Tara continues to act as Willow’s guide during this episode, flitting in and out, like a spirit guide.
She reminds Willow that the play isn’t the point. (What happens with Riley and salesman is not
important – hmmm, are the writers trying to tell us that As You Were wasn’t as important as it
looked? Not sure. But I digress – that whole salesman scene with Riley/Buffy/Harmony reminds me
of As You Were. Particularly Buffy’s speech: “But what else could I expect from a bunch of low-rent,
no-account hoodlums like you? Hoodlums, yes, I mean you and your friends, your whole sex, throw
'em in the sea for all I care, throw 'em in and wait for the bubbles, men with your groping and
spitting all groin no brain three billion of you passing around the same worn-out urge. Men! With
your ... sales!” Makes me think of Spike and Riley and Spuffy sex this season, but filtered through
Willow’s eyes. More evidence that Spike/Riley may be combined in the dream. And Willow remember
is “gay now” – as she even states in Bloodties when Buffy states “no more men, don’t need them”,
Willow – “preaching to the choir here.”) Tara tries to tell Willow the point is: “Everyone's starting to
wonder about you. The real you. If they find out, they'll punish you, I ... I can't help you with that.”
Who is the real Willow? Does Willow even know? She’s so busy trying to hide it, that she may have
lost track of it. Then Tara is suddenly gone and Willow is running from the first slayer again, until
she runs smack into Buffy and this time it’s high school Buffy. High School Buffy tells Willow she
must have done something to make the slayer come after her. But Willow states: “No. I never do
anything. I'm very seldom naughty.” Then Buffy asks why she’s still in costume. Willow and the
audience are clueless. Until Buffy
strips it off. “BUFFY: Oh, for god's sake, just take it off.
(Spins Willow around and rips her clothes off.)(Shot of Willow in her nerdy schoolgirl outfit and long
straight hair from BTVS first season. Holding some paper.)”
Poor Willow is now relegated to the role she played when she first met Buffy. The girl that Cordelia
describes as getting to know the softer side of Sears. That girl is always present in Willow’s head.
Amy gets her to go out in Smashed by stating – “Or ... maybe ... you'd rather sit home all night,
alone, like in high school.” Willow would do anything not to be that girl, as she tells Buffy in
Wrecked: “I mean ... if you could be ... you know, plain old Willow or super Willow, who would you
be?” This is something Buffy can’t understand – which Willow knows – Buffy is flapper girl and
slayer girl…she doesn’t see Willow. Tara does, but Tara and OZ in the last scene of Willow’s dream
are laughing sniggering. “OZ: (to Tara) I tried to warn you.” And Xander is acting like she’s
unimportant, that what she does – doesn’t even matter. And who put her front and center – who
ripped off her costume? Buffy. And it’s Buffy who does nothing to save her when the first slayer rips
out her soul.
A few final dream points:
1. Willow is doing a report on The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis. As Willow
herself states: this book has many themes, not just the obvious ones. It’s a childhood book with a
Witch and a Lion doing battle. The Witch is symbolic of Chaos while the lion, Aslan, represents
order. When the Witch is in control –it is cold, white, demons reign, and the world is chaotic. Aslan
by sacrificing himself, in a very Christ-like crucifixion scene, restores order to the chaos. Once again
we have Janus – order/chaos.
2. The Bald Man Or Cheese Man– is also about enforcing a sense of order onto chaos. He mentions to
Willow in the midst of the chaotic play: “I've made a little space for the cheese slices.” (He shows her
a table with slices of American cheese laid neatly in a row.) His little orderly place for the cheese
Willow dismisses out of hand. Willow’s dream is chaotic, restless, while on the surface Willow even in
her dream appears to represent order, calm.
3. When the dream ends – Willow is literally choking on the chaotic emotions inside her, the order
her spirit had imposed on them stripped from her by the first slayer.
In Willow’s dream we see the duality of several characters. Buffy is both the ditzy flapper girl and
the hard slayer saving her friends. Xander is the smart alec friend and the cruel classmate.
Harmony is the sweet friendly milkmaid and the biting social climber. Riley is the Cowboy and the
cardboard actor with no substance, rushing to the rescue but leaving chaos in his wake. Giles is the
director attempting to install order yet losing control by his inability to understand the actors needs,
the absentminded professor if you will. Tara is the spirit guide, kind supportive, yet also judgmental
and forcing Willow to face what’s inside. And finally Willow – Willow is the geeky nerdy girl doing
the book report and the girl controlling Tara with a spell. Janus – the duality of male and female,
light and dark lying side by side. Even Willow’s book: the Lion, the Witch and The Wardrobe
expresses this theme of dark and light – in the Witch (female dark chaotic) and Aslan – the Lion
(male light order.) The question posed at the end of Willow’s dream is will she be able to incorporate
both or will the chaotic emotions boiling up inside destroy her spirit and consume her light?
Part of growing up is learning how to deal with past transgressions. Willow has never figured out
how to do this. She either bottles it up inside or lashes out. In fact – the source of her power, may be
all those dark bottled up emotions boiling up inside her. Instead of dealing, she hides or represses
under a sweet facade, bottling up even more.
On her journey – Willow slips into the pitfalls of Kurtz in The Heart of Darkness. Or the surfer boy
in Apocalypse Now – who looks forward to the trip but can’t deal with the pain he finds on the other
side. Like Kurtz and the surfer boy, Willow is an idealist. She believes the world should be a bright
and rosy place and worse, believes she has the power to make it so. She doesn’t. The problem with
trying to save the world – is sometimes it’s a chore just trying to save yourself.
It’s ironic really – because Willow always came across as the most moral and non-judgmental of the
group. She accepted everyone – even Faith, at first. Her spirit held them together. But beneath all
that – are some heavy duty fears that date back to her childhood. Like all of us, Willow has
chaos/emotion and order/spirit battling inside her. She hasn’t figured out how to incorporate them
yet partly because she’s still carrying her childhood on her back. As she puts it to Tara about Ms.
Kitty –“I don’t know…she’s not fully grown yet. I have time. ” In Willow’s mind she has plenty of
time. But does she? Really?
Sorry for the length – hope it adds to the discussion and not a retread. Look for Part II: Xander’s
dream: Trusting Your Heart soon.
Thanks again! Looking forward to comments as always. (Oh won’t be up on my site until it’s off the
boards.) ; -) shadowkat
[>
Excellent stuff, shadowkat...I know where to look when I get to my "Restless"
annotations! -- Rob, 22:07:00 04/17/02 Wed
[>
amazing, shadowkat! one thing, though... -- anom, 22:59:31 04/17/02 Wed
"Xander makes fun of Willow’s magic to OZ as well as her relationship to Tara. “So whatcha been
doin'? Doing spells? (To Oz) She does spells with Tara.” Then later: 'Sometimes I think about two
women doing a spell ... and then I do a spell by myself.' Which relates back to the Yoko Factor where
Spike tells Willow that Xander said her whole witchcraft thing with Tara was just dabbling. It
wasn’t important. He didn’t take her seriously. In the dream Xander almost appears to making fun
of her."
I understood Xander's "doing a spell" as referring to sex. So thinking about 2 women doing a spell &
then doing a spell by himself means fantasizing about lesbians having sex & then masturbating.
(This links to the part of Xander's dream where Willow & Tara start to get it on in the back of the ice
cream truck.) There's been plenty said on this board about the equating of sex w/magic & of witches
w/lesbians. It's interesting that this occurs in Willow's dream--does she know more about
Xander's fantasies than either of them thinks she does?
[> [>
Re: amazing, shadowkat! one thing, though... -- shadowkat, 05:38:47 04/18/02 Thu
Oh yeah - I agree, I think it has to do with sex as
well. Plan to address that a little in Xander's dream.
Each dream builds on the next one. Restless is one of the most beautiful pieces of television story
writing I've seen since maybe the good old days of Rod Sterling and Twilight
Zone. Each piece builds on the next, metaphorically,
you have the exterior plot - the slayer pursuing them,
and the interior plot - their own fears plaguing them,
plus revealing what dreamers subsconsciously feel about themselves and each other, plus coiling it
all into
one big metaphor revealing something about Buffy - the
slayer and furthering your own mythos and plot forward.
That is storytelling at it's finest. So why isn't Hollywood
giving this guy an Emmy? (Not that he really needs one -
has all these development deals, thank god.)
[>
Wow. Spoilers for Normal Again -- Tar, 23:56:34 04/17/02 Wed
Just a thought I had after reading your excellent analysis and may not even correlate to either
episode, but in 'Restless' you mention how Buffy is the one who rips off Willow's clothing and
basically abandons her to the first slayer. I wonder if this could also symbolize some subconscious
feelings of resentment that Willow may harbor towards Buffy.
Willow is exposed to the dangers of the slayer world thru her association with Buffy. For the most
part, Willow has always been supportive and understanding of the slayer duties and enthustiastic in
wanting to help Buffy. But on some level, she may resent that Buffy exposed her to the true nature
of Sunnydale and the rest of the world. Perhaps in Willow's mind, by allowing Willow entry into her
world, Buffy betrayed their friendship. Buffy's actions in Willow's dream appear to be a betrayal as
well.
As Xander mentions in Normal Again, prior to Buffy's move to the area, Sunnydale was a pretty nice
place to live.
An excellent post. I can't wait to see the next installment.
[> [>
Re: Wow. Spoilers for Normal Again -- Arethusa, 07:47:30 04/18/02 Thu
Willow also undoubtedly resented Buffy a little because Xander fell for Buffy at first sight. Willow's
loved him for years but he still thought of her as one of the guys. Although Willow loved and
admired Buffy, that must have hurt her. It says a lot about Willow's character that she never
blamed Buffy or showed any resentment, but her dreams betrayed her.
i
[>
Twilight Zone Episode - OT -- NightRepair, 03:03:05 04/18/02 Thu
Loved your post Shadowkat and while there's heaps I would like to write about - I just have to say -
thank you for the Twilight Zone epsiode reference!
I must have see this epsiode when I was about 8 and no other tv show has stuck in my memory in
quite the same way. The shot that pans upwards to show the little boy's sister sitting there with NO
MOUTH! (he'd wished that she couldn't talk and tell him what to do, I think). God, it gives me
shivers just thinking about it now! None of my friends remember the episode so I'm glad you
do!
That's all I wanted to say!
[> [>
Re: Twilight Zone Episode - OT -- verdantheart, 06:35:31 04/18/02 Thu
The writers at BtVS do. Xander, from "Older and Far Away":
It's just, you know, you're upset
'cause we wanna leave, and now we
can't leave. Only thing missing is
a corn field.
(beat)
There... isn't a corn field, is there?
Love the allusion ...
[>
The words on Tara's back -- verdantheart, 06:38:24 04/18/02 Thu
Interesting. I haven't tried to translate them myself, but here's what sounds like a different
interpretation by a poster here (hope you don't mind, Masq, I copied it from your analysis):
Many colored throned immortal Aphrodite,
daughter of Zeus, wile-weaver,
I beg you with reproaches and harms do not beat down O Lady, my soul.
But come here, if ever at another time
My voice hearing, from afar
You have ear, and your father's home leaving
-- golden -- you came.
(DSP, May 23 20:12 2000).
I hope this is of interest.
[> [>
Complete Translation -- shadowkat, 07:54:35 04/18/02 Thu
Here's translation of poem from buffy website, courtesy
of Linda D - a poster on Bc & S - which I had to post
and skeddal - they give new meaning to spoiler trollop.
Even the threads are spoiler laden -ugh! But I like the
feedback and I'm a feedback trollop.
"By Sappho - Greek Poet.
Poem on Tara’s Back – Translation
Deathless Aphrodite on your lavish throne,
Enchantress, daughter of Zeus: I beg you, queen,
Do not overpower my soul with heartaches
and hard troubles,
But come here, if ever at another time
Having heard my voice you paid me attention
And leaving the golden house of your father
you came to me,
Yoking your horse and chariot: gorgeous swift
Sparrows carried you over the coal-black earth,
Thickly whirling their feathers through the midst of
heaven's ether.
Swiftly they arrived, and you, O blessed one,
Smiling with your immortal face, you asked for
What I suffered, and why again I call you
And what in my maddened soul I desire most
To happen to me: what dearest one shall I now
Persuade to lead you back to her — who, O Sappho,
wronged you this time?
For even if she flees, swiftly she will pursue;
And if she does not receive my gifts, she will give;
And if she does not love me, swiftly she will love,
Even against her will. So come to my aid now,
Release me from my grievous cares, fulfill as much
As my heart yearns to be fulfilled: come, be my
fellow-fighter. "
The part I remembered or stuck in my head is:
And if she does not receive my gifts, she will give;
And if she does not love me, swiftly she will love,
Even against her will.
hope helps. Sorry didn't access it for whole analysis,
but it was pretty long to begin with. ;-)
[> [> [>
Re: Complete Translation -- Arethusa, 07:58:19 04/18/02 Thu
More foreshadowy goodness-"even against her will."
[> [> [> [>
Sappho -- Rahael, 08:44:58 04/18/02 Thu
The fact that its by Sappho is equally significant. She lived in the island of Lesbos around 6BC.
It appears that women in Lesbos had an unusual degree of freedom there. Sappho was famous as a
great poet, though now we only have one complete poem, and many little fragments. A lot of the
poems were about women's love for women, so hence the terms 'Sapphic' and 'Lesbian'. But Sappho
appears to be bisexual.
I was going to post earlier, but I'm at home and I have food poisoning. Urggg. I get the day off work
and I can't eat or drink anything! or even sit upright.
This is me going back to bed.
[> [> [> [> [>
Get well soon Rah! -- Sophist, 09:06:31 04/18/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
Thanks for that!...and get well soon Rah! -- shadowkat, 09:40:28 04/18/02 Thu
Didn't know that but wondered if it might be important - the greek reference made me think so -
since so many of
the shows words for demons are taken from Greek.
Thanks for that reference! Hope you feel better...
[> [> [> [> [>
Hope you feel better soon, Rahael. -- Ixchel, 13:17:16 04/18/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
Sick and still there with the informative tidbit. You're a wonder, Rah! Feel better! --
Dichotomy, 17:02:02 04/18/02 Thu
And remember, if you're throwing up, make sure you don't take anything by mouth for a couple
hours after. Then try little spoonfuls of water. Food poisoning's the worst!
[> [> [> [> [>
Get Better -- Rufus, 20:59:43 04/18/02 Thu
I've had that, it wasn't fun....rest and be well...:):):)
[> [> [> [> [>
Been there, done that, not fun at all. Get better soon! -- OnM, 21:17:44 04/18/02
Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
eeewww, poor rah! hope you already feel better by the time you read this -- anom,
23:41:12 04/18/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Thanks all! -- Rahael, 06:57:57 04/19/02 Fri
Feeling much better today!
One thing I wanted to add to my Sappho post was that Tara's nakedness is a sign to us of her
truthfulness and lack of costume. While Willow worries about her 'costume' and her part in the play,
Tara appears as someone with no hidden motives. All she is clothed in is a beautiful poem about
love.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Thanks all! -- Ete, 09:53:48 04/19/02 Fri
"All she is clothed in is a beautiful poem about love"
That is so beautifully said... ^_^
Keep on getting better Rahael :)
[> [> [>
Re: Complete Translation -- verdantheart, 06:39:12 04/19/02 Fri
Ah, thank you! Verrrry cryptic! (And, hey, you know that we can take 'em long -- er, posts, that is ...
starting to sound like Buffy here ...)
[>
Re: Restless: Leaving Childhood Behind - Part I: Willow's Dream -- ponygirl, 06:45:31
04/18/02 Thu
Great as always! I'm looking forward to the other installments. Restless has lent itself to so many
interpretations, everyone who looks at it seems to bring another layer to it, every episode since has
echoed it in some way. It qualifies for me as art with the A firmly in caps. I am looking forward to
the commentary by Joss on the dvd of the episode, but I have a feeling he's not going to offer us much
in the way of conrete meaning. But endless speculation is always part of the fun, and maybe the
point.
Your post inspired me to open up my copy of Heart of Darkness last night and this line (underlined
for some long-lost essay) struck me:
"to him the meaning of an episode was not inside like a kernel but outside, enveloping the tale which
brought it out only as a glow brings out a haze, in the likeness of one of these misty halos that
sometimes are made visible by the spectral illumination of moonshine."
[>
Re: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe -- leslie, 10:26:51 04/18/02 Thu
Good lord, and that's just, like, the first 15 minutes of the episode....
It occurs to me that there may be even more significance in Willow's report on The Lion, the Witch,
and the Wardrobe. Just within this dream, Willow and Tara have been discussing their shared pet,
Miss Kitty--the "lion." (Although there is probably an extremely crude "pussy" pun lurking here as
well. As well as "the love that dare not speak its name"?) Part of Willow's self-identity confusion
revolves around her use of magic--the "witch." And even more so, around her anxieties about
acknowledging her lesbianism--coming out of the closet, the "wardrobe." All of these are the things
she shares with Tara, the things she earlier had said she liked having just to herself, not sharing
with the SG--yet in her dream, she has to report on them to her whole high school class. Yet,
although this part of the dream seems to cut to her most vulnerable aspect--dressed in her geeky
high school clothes (high school never ends)--what she is actually saying to them, if they would only
hear it, is that she is *not* this geek they see before them: she's a lesbian and a witch, she's
powerful, and she doesn't need the men who have rejected her (Xander and Oz).
[> [>
Will the perceptivity reach no limit?! -- verdantheart, 06:45:17 04/19/02 Fri
This is what keeps me coming back.
[> [>
Re: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe -- Arethusa, 08:45:57 04/19/02 Fri
I tried to post this yesterday but I guess Moloch ate it.
The witch in "Witch" was evil, making Narnia always winter but never Christmas. She immobilized
her enemies by turning them into stone, like Medusa, only without the snakes. When Edmund, one
of the four children in the book, made a pact with her, Aslan sacrificed his life in Edmund's
place.
The four children were Peter, Susan, Edmund, and Lucy. Lucy is very sweet, loyal and loving to her
friends and family. She is given a small bottle made from a diamond, which holds a liquid with
healing powers.
Susan is very lovely, and later becomes a famous beauty, but chooses boys and parties over returning
to Narnia. She is given a bow and arrows to fight with (although they are told by Aslan that "battles
are ugly when women fight"), and a horn that will always summon help.
Peter becomes the High King of Narnia, its champion, and leads the troops into battle. He is given a
sword.
Edmund spends the rest of his life atoning for his act of treachery, and becomes known for his love of
justice. He is given nothing, since he was a traitor at the time the gifts were handed out.
So we have young women being give mystical gifts to help fight evil, and young men atoning for their
sins and leading their supernatural forces into battle. Magic, witches, self-sacrifice, warrior
champions, traitors, and so on. No wonder I loved those books.
[>
Thanks for the great feedback! -- shadowkat, 18:51:36 04/18/02 Thu
Especially the stuff I didn't pick up on with Sappho
and the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Of course not
sure I could have added that to the analysis without it
becoming fifteen pages...;-)
But I did sneak some of your suggestions into the
Xander analysis - regarding Willow and his impressions of
her.
Thanks again!
Which 15 episodes would you pick
for... -- Wynn, 18:54:52 04/17/02 Wed
I found this question at the Crumbling Walls forum. The poster, Harmony, asked which 15 episodes
of BtVS would you choose for a 15 hour back-to-back marathon?
The marathon should be a good guide for newbies and should include key episodes (a la Becoming Pt
2, The Gift, etc.)
There must be at least one episode from Season One and two episodes per Seasons 2-6.
Reasons must be given for choosing the episodes.
I'm interested in hearing what everybody here would choose. I think that it's an extremely hard
decision and would make a good debate topic in the Buffy re-run hell. My choices will be posted
soon.
Wynn
[>
Here are my choices -- Wynn, 20:31:27 04/17/02 Wed
1- Welcome to the Hellmouth: All of the basic characters are introduced (Buffy, Willow, Xander,
Giles, and Angel) and the background story is set (What is a Slayer, What is a Watcher, and What is
the Hellmouth?) The tone of the show, the mixture of humor, horror, and action, is displayed
perfectly.
2- Prophecy Girl: Buffy's first death sets up Kendra and Faith. This episode shows why two Slayers
at one time are possible.
3- Innocence: Sums up the Angelus/Buffy story. Angelus is evil soulless Angel, whom Buffy loves.
He returns to Spike and Dru, setting the seeds for Angelus' taunting of Spike and Spike's jealousy,
which leads to his partnership with Buffy in...
4- Becoming Part 2: The resolution to Angelus and to Spike's jealousy, and it introduces Willow's use
of magic. The episode also reinforces the connection between Angel and Buffy, and shows the
beginning of Buffy and Spike, impacting later seasons.
5- Faith, Hope, and Trick: Introduces Faith, who is completely different from Buffy. This episode
also shows Angel's return from Hell, which explains how he can be present in...
6- Graduation Day Part 1: The showdown between Buffy and Faith. The Mayor arc is summed up
nicely (the Ascension and his connection to Faith) and background on Anya is given (1000 yr old
demon.) This episode also explains why Angel is not in the rest of the seasons.
7- Hush: A groundbreaking hour of television and one of the best BtVS episodes ever. How can this
not be shown? Shows the basics of the Initiative, Spike's chipping and refuge with the SG, and Buffy
and Riley. We also meet Tara and see that Anya has returned.
8- Restless: Just for Joss having the cojones to do an entire dream episode. As all of us know, it also
sets up for countless hours of debate about the meanings behind the dreams. Introduces the First
Slayer, who impacts late Season Five choices.
9- Real Me: This episode introduces Dawn and the Magic Shop. Sets up one of the Season Five arcs:
How can a little sister for Buffy appear out of thin air? and what's the deal with the crazy people's
reaction to Dawn?
10- Fool for Love: FFL explains Buffy's quest to know more about her Slayer-ness, specifically how
were the past Slayer's killed. Plus, the background on Spike is excellent, the cinematography (esp.
the cuts between the alley and the bus) is beautiful, and the dynamic between soulless vampire and
Slayer is changed forever in the last 10 minutes.
11- Blood Ties: Explains who and what the Key is, who Glory and Ben are, the connection between
them, and why Glory wants the Key. It is also the beginning of the Dawn Spike relationship, which
is important for #13, as is the blood mixing between Buffy and Dawn.
12- The Body: One of the best BtVS episodes. This episode simply cannot be shown.
13- The Gift: Climax of Season 5. The argument over whether or not to kill Dawn, the fight with
Glory, Buffy's death, etc. Another one of the best episodes.
14- Bargaining Part 2: Explains Buffy's return to the land of the living. Her disorientation and
separation from the living world is evident, setting up #15...
15- Once More With Feeling: Again, shown just because Joss and co. had the guts to do it. Well,
that and it is awesome. Explains most of the arcs of Season 6: Willow and magic, Xander and Anya's
wedding jitters, Buffy and Spike, Dawn stealing, Buffy's separation from her friends, and, last but
not least, Buffy's belief that she was in heaven.
Honorable mentions: Angel (more background on Angel himself and his 'ship with Buffy), Passion
(Jenny and Angelus), Consequences (Faith's turn to the Dark Side), The Initiative (background on
the major Season 4 arc), Primeval (the resolution of the major Season 4 arc), Shadow (explains
Joyce's illness), and Intervention ("Death is your gift").
[> [>
Re: Here are my choices -- Purple Tulip, 20:47:06 04/17/02 Wed
I really agree with most of your choices and your reasoning, but...what about episodes such as
"Surprise" which really set up the whole Angel/Angelus thing and "Smashed" which changed the
whole Spike/Buffy dynamic forever? And I also think that it would not be a good idea to show a
newcomer these two part episodes without showing the first or the second episode of the two-parter.
Anywa, just my opinion:)
[> [> [>
If you are limited to only 15 eps, it's hard to disagree with your choices. -- OnM,
05:45:57 04/18/02 Thu
All of which shows how insanely difficult it is to introduce someone to the show by just picking a very
limited number of eps, even 15 of them. An interesting extension of your original question might be
to ask what is the minimum number of eps that would reasonably 'introduce' a
newcomer to the show.
Top of my head, I'd guess about 25 to 30?
Anyone care to fill in the spaces between the 15 eps until you feel you have reached the blissful state
of NME-- 'newbie minimal eppage'?
[> [> [> [>
Re: If you are limited to only 15 eps, it's hard to disagree with your choices. -- maddog,
12:03:19 04/18/02 Thu
I don't think Innocence really hits home unless you've watched Surprise first. That's 1.
And continueing on the trend I hate seeing part 2's without seeing how they got there so I'd have to
add Becoming Part 1. That way you see not only Kendra die, but Drusilla's first Slayer kill. That's
2.
You have to add in at least The Wish, if not Dopplegangland too if for nothing else to show Willow's
vampy side(and the beginnings of the lesbian speculation). That's 3 and 4.
I might add in Consequences too just to see Faith being setup for the big fall. Where she turned to
the dark side if you will. That's 5.
Continuing on my sequels issue I'd add in Gradday 2 for two serious and one not so serious things.
The not so serious one being Skinner eaten by the mayor. The two serious ones being Buffy's dream
with Faith(first inkling of Dawn) and the final stare between Buffy and Angel before he vanishes
into thin air. That's 6.
The only one I'd add to season 4 would probably be Primevile. To see what untapped power Buffy
has and also to see the beginnings of Spike as a mainstay in the gang. That's 7.
Season 5 I'd add 3. The first being Checkpoint. I think we need to see the turning of the tide...when
they finally realize what they're up against(also, I just love that final scene with Buffy sticking it to
the Watcher's Council). That's 8.
Then I'd add Crush in there as well to see just how far Spike's feelings have come as he's willing to
dust Dru to keep Buffy happy. That's 9.
And I can't finish off this season without Intervention which not only says "Death is your gift" but
people tend to leave out the statement before that which was "love will lead you to your gift". Even
Buffy forgets this along the way until the end. Perfect setup for The Gift. That's 10.
And I'd add 2 to this season as of now(though by season's end I'll need a few more). I'd add Smashed
as it changed the whole Buffy/Spike persona all together. Also it's the catalyst for Willow who starts
getting into the more frequent and heavier magics at that point. That's 11.
And I'd finally add Gone as it seems to be Buffy's true turning point into wanting to be alive and
worthwhile again. That's 12.
ok, tha'ts a grand total of 27 and I have a feeling the last few episodes might make me tack on
another 1 or 2 so I'd say 30 would be my best case, catches all angles marathon. That's over a full
day of All Buffy, All the time. I like it! :)
[> [> [> [> [>
Choosing only 15 is really hard... -- Wynn, 14:12:15 04/18/02 Thu
I agree with your additions. I'd also add The Harvest (to learn how vampires are killed on BtVS) and
Bad Girls (to see Faith's dark side emerge and her separation from Buffy). Like you and OnM have
pointed out, at least 20-30 episodes are needed to just get the basics of the show.
[> [> [> [> [>
Good additions, the only changes I'd make would be... -- OnM, 17:17:30 04/18/02
Thu
...the addition of Forever to The Body-- these eps are bookends, to my way of thinking,
and I agree that seeing 2-parters seperated doesn't work well.
I'd delete Gone-- I see it as a step along the way to Buffy fully embracing life again,
not 'the' step. I don't think 'the' step has happened yet, but I hope to see it by the season end.
[>
Re: Which 15 episodes would you pick for... -- maddog, 11:29:22 04/18/02 Thu
I just can't do it. I think you need at least 3 episodes from every season except the 1st(and yet I find
I need 4 in others) to really hit the high and low notes. I'd need a good 20 to do it justice.
[>
How about the inessential Buffy? -- d'Herblay, 16:13:03 04/18/02 Thu
The last time I tried one of these, the idea was to fill up a T-120 for MayaPapaya, and I was able to
finesse the six-hour limitation by arguing for the neglected masterpieces of Buffyiana. As Wynn and
OnM and maddog are finding out, the quality of too many episodes has been too high to be
distinguishable from the other greats. I've now read 27 suggestions, none of which I find arguable,
and I'm still saying "What about 'Nightmares'? Or 'Out of Mind, Out of Sight,' the perfect
encapsulation of adolescent alienation? How can anyone leave off 'Something Blue'? 'Earshot' is
maybe the greatest message-episode in Buffy's history, or perhaps 'Gingerbread.' I can't think
of a funnier episode than 'Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered,' other than 'Tabula Rasa,'
'Homecoming,' 'The Zeppo' and 'The Yoko Factor.' And what about 'What's My Line, Pt. 2'? Cordelia
gets hosed down in that one, so it makes my list . . . " And then I kick myself for forgetting to
mention "Normal Again."
I might be able to come up with a list of 117 all-time great Buffy episodes, if I put on my
thinking cap. Well, maybe 116. There must be some stinkers somewhere. I would think that the sub-
par would stand out more than the sublime against the general background of excellence. I suppose
that the easiest way to come up with a list of the 102 essential episodes of Buffy is to find the
15 inessential episodes. Here goes:
I like the first season, I really do; but I watched it catch-as-catch-can, and managed to become a well-
respected poster here without ever having seen the second act of "Teacher's Pet." (FX has allowed me
to rectify this.) As "Teacher's Pet" was inessential to my development as a Buffybuff, it may be
inessential to Buffybuff evangelism. I also think that "Never Kill a Boy on the First Date" and "The
Puppet Show" are pretty minor. On the other hand, "The Puppet Show" has the Scoobies doing
Sophocles; and it's the introduction of Principal Snyder. Take it off the list! This will be harder than I
thought!
The second season provides two much-derided episodes: "Bad Eggs" and "Go Fish." I won't argue
their virtues, though "Bad Eggs" does introduce the Gorches (who are essential to "Homecoming,"
one of my faves). A connection to a later episode always effects my appreciation of the former. I
thought that "The Wish" was chilling and heart-rending on first viewing; after "Doppelgangland," the
original appearance of VampWillow gave "The Wish" a comedic flavor. So perhaps "Bad Eggs" is not
as inessential as is commonly thought. I think that "Go Fish" tends to suffer from its placement
between "I Only Have Eyes For You" and "Becoming." All through it I was saying, "Ok, an over-
emphasis on athletics in high school breeds monsters, but what's going on with Angelus?" Also, I
can't really reject out of hand an episode which has Cordelia saying, "And we can still date. Or not...
I mean, I understand if you want to see other fish. I'll do everything I can to make your quality of life
better, whether that means little bath toys or whatever."
The third season is perfect in every way and in each episode.
A lot of people don't like the fourth season. My esteem for it has grown over time; however, I could
probably do without "Living Conditions" and "Where the Wild Things Are" -- though how bad an
episode can WtWTA be if I could be enraptured by it dubbed into French? (What's that I hear you
saying? Hey! I loved "Beer Bad"!)
"Shadow" and "Listening to Fear": uck.
I am not the biggest fan of the sixth season. (Rob is the biggest fan of the sixth season -- I am
starting to suspect that were Rob to become an enthusiast of lint he would be the biggest, bestest fan
lint ever had. There would be a page at Amazon.com entitled "So you want to know everything there
is to know about lint!!" and a website called TheAnnotatedLint.com and every even slightly negative
post at "All Things Philosophical about Lint" would be followed by the reply, "Even if your pockets
are empty, you've always got lint!!!" Rob is the Energizer Bunny of Buffybuffs, while I just wish I
could be that juiced up.) I could make arguments for the inessentiality of "Flooded," "Wrecked,"
"Doublemeat Palace" and "As You Were" (and entertain others' arguments for the inessentiality of
"Life Serial," "Gone" and "Older and Far Away"), but I think it's too soon to tell. In any case, my
dislike of an episode is not tantamount to the episode being inessential: I despised "As You Were,"
with its too-perfect Riley and too-imperfect helicopter, but I can't bring myself to say that an episode
which contains Buffy's break-up with Spike is in any way inessential to the story arc of this
season.
Ignoring my caveats, my inessential episodes tally as:
1. Never Kill a Boy on the First Date
2. Teacher's Pet
3. The Puppet Show
4. Bad Eggs
5. Go Fish
6. Living Conditions
7. Where the Wild Things Are
8. Shadow
9. Listening to Fear
10. Flooded
11. Wrecked
12. Doublemeat Palace
13. As You Were
I still need two to reach the magic (and arbitrary) total of fifteen! Umm . . . "Restless"! "Once More
with Feeling"! Errr . . . "The Body"! Can't be done. In fact, the more I look at this list the more I want
to take off "Teacher's Pet" and "Go Fish."
[> [>
I agree. Much more manageable! -- Dichotomy, 17:03:22 04/18/02 Thu
[> [>
Re: uck-- *The days all seem to bleed together* -- OnM, 17:48:45 04/18/02 Thu
*******
From Listening to Fear
*******
INT. JOYCE'S HOSPITAL ROOM - MORNING (DAY 3)
Joyce is back in her hospital bed. Buffy sits at her side, holding her mother's hand. A nurse
swabs
Joyce's arm with alcohol and inserts an intravenous needle. Joyce winces, keeps her focus on Buffy.
As the
nurse starts to exit--.
JOYCE: Buffy?
BUFFY: Um hum?
JOYCE: I…
(The nurse exits and Joyce draws closer to her daughter.)
JOYCE: I want to ask you something... And if I'm being crazy - you just tell me. Okay?
BUFFY: You got it.
JOYCE: The other day... Actually, I'm not sure when. The days all seem to bleed together ...
BUFFY: It's not important.
JOYCE: No, I guess it isn't. I do know I was pretty out of it. And I had - not a dream exactly. More
like, I
had this knowledge. It just came to me - like truth, you know? Even though it didn't seem possible.
Even
though I shouldn't think such things.
BUFFY: What, Mom? It's okay.
(Joyce says the next with difficulty.)
JOYCE: That Dawn... (pained, pausing-- then:) She's not mine, is she?
(Buffy takes this in for a long beat. Finally--)
BUFFY: No.
(Joyce labors to understand.)
JOYCE: She's - she does belong to us though.
BUFFY: Yes. She does.
JOYCE:And she's important. To the world. Precious ...
(Buffy nods. Joyce takes her hand.)
JOYCE
As precious as you are to me?
(Buffy nods again - trying to hold it together.)
JOYCE: Then we have to take care of her. Promise me, Buffy - if anything happens to me, if I don't
come
through this--
BUFFY: (cutting her off) Mom--
JOYCE: No. Let me finish. No matter what she is, she still feels like my daughter, and I have to
know
you'll keep her safe. You'll love her like I love you.
(Buffy fights tears.)
BUFFY: I promise.
JOYCE: Good. Good...
(Joyce seems to relax a bit. Lays back and pulls her daughter to her. Holds her
tenderly.)
JOYCE: My sweet, brave Buffy. What would I do without you?
(The camera pulls close on Buffy-- scared, silently asking the same of her mother.)
*******
OnM weeps.
*******
[> [> [>
Re: uck-- *The days all seem to bleed together* -- d'Herblay, 19:48:58 04/18/02 Thu
*******
From Listening to Fear
*******
JOYCE'S POV: There, directly above her head, is the Queller. It
draws its lethal mucus through its teeth. Leers at her with its big, murky eyes.
*******
d'Herblay ucks.
*******
De gustibus non disputandum est comes to mind here, as does one of my favorite Woody
Allen quotes (from "My Philosophy" in Getting Even):We can say that the
universe consists of a substance, and this substance we will call "atoms," or else we will call it
"monads." Democritus called it atoms. Liebnitz called it monads. Fortunately, the two men never
met, or there would have been a very dull argument.
One question is worth
discussing, though: every Buffy episode has at least one great line or moment -- thus my
reluctance to damn "Go Fish." How much quality can an episode contain and still be considered
below par? Or is this Hollywood's Lake Wobegon, where all Joss's children are above average?
[> [> [> [>
Reminds me of 'Spiral' -- Cactus Watcher, 20:32:19 04/18/02 Thu
It has many fine moments, but stealing that pathetic RV, and driving out of town ala Dr. Who only
to have to come back the next ep; the whole huge Ben-is-Glory revelation which no one, but Spike
remembers the next? Dare I say 'filler episode?' A fine filler nonetheless.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Reminds me of 'Spiral' -- Akita, 08:38:13 04/19/02 Fri
Maybe you have to love "Stagecoach" to love "Spiral"? Which I do. Both. Someday I'll get around to
finishing my "Spike as Western (movie) Icon" essay. Or not.
-A-
[> [> [> [>
LOL-- but you're right-- above averge is the norm here. -- OnM, 21:03:51 04/18/02
Thu
Out of the entire 117 eps to date, I consider only Where the Wild Things Are and As You
Were to be below average, but even then there were 'moments' in each of these.
The moments just weren't excessively memorable though. For me, the sheer emotional impact
and significance to the series that takes place in a scene like the one I detailed outweigh any other
weaknesses in the ep. It's like being in a resturant where the service is sloppy but not meanspirited,
the decor bland but not offensive, but when they finally do serve the main course, you do the wow!
thing.
The scene with Joyce and Buffy isn't just a warm and fuzzy emotional moment, Joyce is somehow
prescient in regards to her upcoming demise, and has just effectively handed the mantle of
motherhood onto her daughter. Buffy somehow subconsciously realizes this, but the thought is just
too horrifying to deal with. When the incidents of The Body and Forever come to pass,
it is important to realize that this fear of taking on the responsibility of motherhood before she feels
ready to do so is a primary contributor to Buffy's eventual mental breakdown/catatonia in 'The
Weight of the World'.
Also, minor point, but this was also the ep in which we first got to see a feisty, more Slayer-like
Dawn, who took on the Quellor for a least a brief time, in defense of her mother. Since Buffy is now
beginning the process of taking Joyce's place as 'the mother', Dawn is beginning the first steps in
becoming the new Slayer. (Yes, pure conjecture at this point, but if Faith ever gets to present her
'gift'-- I'm pretty sure that Dawn will be 'called'.)
Gee, now I think I could get off on a rant more detailed review here, but maybe another
time.
;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
Most "Buffy" episodes ARE above average! I've crunched the numbers! --
d'Herblay, 14:05:05 04/19/02 Fri
I spent some time with the episode ratings at the
Council of Watchers (by the way, "Listening to Fear" is the 94th highest ranked episode of
Buffy, keeping it out of their bottom fifteen, but just making the bottom twenty-five), Excel, a
sheet of graph paper and a mechanical pencil, releasing the nerd within. The mean (add all the
ratings and divide by the number of episodes) of the ratings they gave the episodes is 7.515, and the
median is 7.76 -- there are 58 episodes better than "The Yoko Factor" and 58 worse. A show with the
mean rating would be the 72nd highest-rated episode; so an "average" show would be worse than 71
episodes but better than only 46. (The mode, most common, range for ratings is between 8.0 and 8.24
-- I didn't do calculations for smaller intervals.)
Mode > median > mean is an indication that we're dealing with a left-skewed distribution; the
skew is caused by the upper limitation of 10 as the highest possible rating. (The lower limit of 0 is
just as concrete but seems to have little influence on the grade-inflaters at the Council of Watchers!)
The graphs I have drawn match pretty well to natural left-skewed distributions.
[> [>
d'Herb... -- Rob, 19:18:25 04/18/02 Thu
"Rob is the biggest fan of the sixth season -- I am starting to suspect that were Rob to become an
enthusiast of lint he would be the biggest, bestest fan lint ever had. There would be a page at
Amazon.com entitled "So you want to know everything there is to know about lint!!" and a website
called TheAnnotatedLint.com and every even slightly negative post at "All Things Philosophical
about Lint" would be followed by the reply, "Even if your pockets are empty, you've always got lint!!!"
Rob is the Energizer Bunny of Buffybuffs, while I just wish I could be that juiced up."
ROLFMAO!
You've definitely got me pegged down perfectly. You should have seen me when I was much younger
and a "Xena" fan...It wasn't pretty!
Rob :o)
P.S. Btw, I am going to add an update in my WttH analysis next week, giving you credit for the
theory about Buffy being allowed into Sunnydale High b/c of the Mayor...Going through the archives,
I remembered that I got that idea from your Mayor post at last year's posting party. Sorry for the
oversight.
[> [> [>
Thanks! -- d'Herblay, 19:32:01 04/18/02 Thu
While we're giving credit where credit is due, it was dubdub who first deemed you "the Energizer
Bunny" of Buffybuffs. I'm not sure how much credit I take for the Mayor engineering Buffy's
acceptance at Sunnydale High hypothesis: it's ultimately untestable, and so I'm not sure how much
credit I give it myself.
By the way, when reading your kudos-worthy site, I thought of a suggestion. Instead of having
nothing but the footnotes, why not take a transcription and then code in the annotations as popup
windows? This requires a little Java, so I'm still trying to figure out how to do it, but perhaps
someone here can give us a quick tutorial on the imbedded pop-up footnote concept.
[> [> [> [>
d'Herb...about the transcript idea... -- Rob, 18:09:19 04/19/02 Fri
I like that idea a lot...The only problem is where to get the transcripts. Psyche doesn't want people
using the transcripts on other sites, and, for these purposes, I definitely would need it on my site. Do
you know any other transcript sites for "Buffy" that don't mind if other use their transcripts and link
back to them?
[> [> [> [> [>
About the transcript idea . . . -- d'Herblay, 00:58:52 04/20/02 Sat
I've checked over at Psyche's site, and I have yet to find a full noli me tangere warning. I
must admit that I was thinking of building on those particular transcripts, and the thought did cross
my mind, "What are they gonna do? Sue?" I have evil thoughts sometimes.
The stated restrictions on transcripts range from "I prefer that you link to this transcript on the
Psyche site rather than post it on your site, but you can post it on your site if you really want, as long
as you keep my name and email address on it. Please also keep my disclaimers intact" to "Feel free
to distribute this, so long as there are no modifications made" to "If you are looking at this transcript,
save it, copy it, send it to your friends. Unlike other transcribers, who I have nothing but respect for,
if you see any mistakes that might be in this transcript, feel free to correct them, or if you just want
to personalize it to suit yourself, by all means. Hell I do it." These disclaimers though are written by
the transcribers, not by Psyche. I would think that were you to go about this politely, and explain
your intentions well, and provide an example of what you intend, you'll probably find them
agreeable. After all, you would maintain their credits, link back to Psyche's, and add more value to
their work.
One thing you absolutely cannot do is annotate the shooting scripts. That would get you involved in
serious copyright issues.
I suppose that should permission from the various transcribers at Psyche's be withheld, there would
be other places on the web with transcripts (though I suspect that some will be copies of the ones at
Psyche's with the attributions removed -- using these will just compound discourtesies). I'd check out
TWIZ, but their URL has somehow slipped my mind . . .
In the meantime, I'll take a crack at figuring out the Javascript this weekend and try to build a
mock-up (if you don't mind; I'm not trying to steal your thunder, but am trying to figure out how to
code popup footnotes for my own purposes and figure that this will be a good opportunity to learn --
after this, my main contribution to your website will be cheerleading).
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: About the transcript idea . . . -- Rob, 07:40:38 04/20/02 Sat
No, I don't mind...I think it sounds cool...The only question I have is, how hard is Java Script? B/c I
don't know it at all, and since I'd need to be able to edit the page, do you think you'd be able to
explain it to me?
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
If I can figure it out, I can explain it! -- d'Herblay, 13:06:40 04/20/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Heh, heh! Perfecto!! :oD -- Rob, 16:00:48 04/20/02 Sat
Sounds awesome...Really, really excited about this!
Thanks for helpin' me out!
Rob
[> [> [>
Re: d'Herb... -- Arethusa, 10:30:51 04/19/02 Fri
Don't forget a page on Exploding Lint.
[> [>
Some Assembly Required. It's a must on the 10 worst list. -- Sophist, 19:55:43 04/18/02
Thu
[> [> [>
'I Was Made to Love You' makes my list. -- Cactus Watcher, 20:19:19 04/18/02 Thu
[> [> [> [>
So you guys don't like the Make-Your-Own-Girlfriend subgenre? -- d'Herblay, 21:02:07
04/18/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
I liked "I Was Made to Love You"... -- Rob, 21:24:45 04/18/02 Thu
Yeah, yeah, I know.
Rob liked an episode of "Buffy" that others didn't...Stop the presses! :o)
But I honestly did think it was very clever...not the best ep ever, but clever.
"Some Assembly Required," on the other hand, besides some good Scooby character moments, was a
mess, in my opinion. So see? Ha! I don't think every episode is brilliant! I'm still trying to figure out
how that guy was able to come back to life. He clearly wasn't a regular zombie...nor was he like the
dead guys from "The Zeppo." Actually, on the whole, I never had any problem with any of the Buffy
mythology, where others did. I found it totally acceptable, for example, that Spike could develop love
for Buffy, from the beginning, when a lot of people were screaming "breaking the rules," but I
definitely don't want to get back into that argument now lol. I'm just bringing it up to make the
point, however, that I just cannot buy that this guy could come back to life the way he did. It doesn't
fit in with other episodes that made it clear that dead is dead, unless you were (a) turned into a
vampire or (b) killed by mystical energy. The only exceptions to that rule have been (a) zombies, who
really don't have any free will, and are just the reanimated human corpses and (b) the dead guys
from "The Zeppo," but, again, despite their free will, they are still just reanimated human corpses,
that seem to be rotting away. In all of these situations, the difficulty of bringing someone back to life
is great, and remains more likely when the death occured by magic, rather than natural causes. I
find it very hard to buy that the guy who died in "Some Assembly Required" could have been brought
back to life, by being reassembled, and yet not be a zombie. Further, that whole chop up pieces of
different girls thing was a stretch, I thought, as well. If he needed the perfect girl by these means,
why not kill her, chop her up, and then reassemble her for the spell, instead of taking pieces from
bunches of girls? I'm sure she'd be just as ugly a reanimated corpse if she was made from one girl, or
twenty girls. What's the diff really?
Wow, rambly much?
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [>
You saar it, bwana! -- LittleBit, 21:48:47 04/18/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [>
De gustibus disputo -- d'Herblay, 23:20:12 04/18/02 Thu
I liked "I Was Made to Love You" well enough: Shondra Farr was very easy on the eyes, and it led
right into "The Body," so it gains points by association. It doesn't make my top fifteen, but it's
definitely in my top 102.
"Some Assembly Required" was certainly one of the top fifteen Buffy episodes when it first
aired, and was probably in the top six or so of episodes that I had seen from start to finish (I didn't
start watching religiously until August 1997). Any episode where Cordelia is in danger -- she
screams with sublimity -- is ok by me. I never had any problem with the way Daryl was brought back
to life; Frankenstein pre-sold that little bit of mythology. As to "If he needed the perfect girl
by these means, why not kill her, chop her up, and then reassemble her for the spell, instead of
taking pieces from bunches of girls?" I say, with Joe E. Brown, "Well, nobody's perfect."
De gustibus non disputandum est. De gustibus non disputandum est. De gustibus non disput
-- "You don't like 'Some Assembly Required'? Heretic! Infidel!"
[> [> [> [> [> [>
rob, you like everything! you're... -- anom, 23:38:02 04/18/02 Thu
...the anti-Mikey! And finding one ep you didn't like just proves it: Some Assembly Required is your
Life cereal (not to be confused w/Life Serial)!
As for The Zeppo, "...(b) the dead guys from "The Zeppo," but, again, despite their free will, they are
still just reanimated human corpses, that seem to be rotting away."
They don't seem unwilling to be reanimated; the 1st one even said, "You did it! You raised
me!" & checked to make sure (damn, drawing a blank on his name--it was something simple, like
Jack, wasn't it?) had taped Walker Texas Ranger for him, which implies he expected to be raised.
And their state of decomposition seems to depend on how long they were "down." If what's-his-name
is any example, the decay is arrested once they're raised. His grandpappy got to him within 10
minutes, & you can't even tell he's dead. It definitely would have been obvious if he'd been
decomposing for 3 (or was it 6?) weeks. (It's late, I'm not gonna check for info I don't have.)
"In all of these situations, the difficulty of bringing someone back to life is great, and remains more
likely when the death occured by magic, rather than natural causes."
Didn't seem that hard in The Zeppo--a few drops of blood & a chant did the trick. And as far as we
know, none of the gang died by magic. Of course, violence isn't usually considered "natural causes"
either, although I suppose it's entirely natural to die if you're shot, or burned, or thrown off a
bridge....
Oh, & as for 15 or whatever no. of episodes...no idea. Sorry.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: rob, you like everything! you're... -- Rob, 08:00:43 04/19/02 Fri
"Some Assembly Required is your Life cereal (not to be confused w/Life Serial)!"
Perish the thought! Life Serial ruled!!
And about the raising-the-dead thing...
Ok, "Zeppo" is an exception, but I am always able to buy "magic" over "science," oddly enough. I don't
buy the Frankenstein thing as fitting into the Buffyverse mythology as much as a zombie or being
raised by a spell. I haven't seen it in a while, so I can't really argue my position. But I guess it's just
like a gut instinct. I am soooo able to suspend my disbelief, it's not funny. You have to be as a fan of
this entire genre. But it seems from the description on the show, if I remember correctly, that his
coming back to life almost just happened. The gang's death was planned in advance...They each
killed themselves with the intention of using that spell to bring them back. And perhaps the way
each of them died, after the first, was a specified way you have to die for the spell to work. I'm not
sure...
And for the record, here is my complete Inessential Buffy list (besides some good scenes, here and
there)...It's very short:
1) I, Robot...You Jane
2) Some Assembly Required
3) Reptile Boy
4) Bad Eggs
5) Go Fish
Believe it or not (and you probably do believe it, considering it's coming from me!) that is it. Those
are the only episodes I think are completely subpar. Again, it's hard on "Buffy" to say that, because
there are almost always some important character moments in each episode. In "Go Fish," for
example, there was that very important scene about Cordelia and Xander's relationship. "Bad Eggs"
introduced the Gorch Brothers.
Oh, and I guess you noticed what these eps have in common? They're both from the first and second
seasons. These subpar stand-alones are the reason I can't say the second season is my favorite. Yes,
it had a great season-long story arc, but this is the only season, in my opinion, that had some
glaringly bad episodes that didn't fit into the story arc. Again, the curse on "Buffy" (if you can call it
that) is that even the "Inessential" episodes are essential viewing, b/c there are almost always some
good stuff...so it's very hard to skip an episode! Thus the obsession thingy.
Now before you go off thinking I'm a second-season-disser, I did think there were some great stand-
alones, most notably "I Only Have Eyes for You," which I think is one of the finest episodes in the
show's run, and I liked every episode besides the ones I listed there. "Lie to Me," for
example...amazing! My favorite stand-alones are those that have a great deal to say about the
characters, and reinforce recurring themes on the show. Eggs that hatch creepy crawly thingies that
practice mind control doesn't just cut it!
Anyway, there you have it. I haven't disliked an episode for four years now! So one would really have
to reek to the high heavens for it to even register in my dislike pile.
I will admit, though, that I thought "Wrecked" was flawed, and "As You Were" I liked, on the whole,
but it just made me hate Riley in whole new kinds of ways!
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: rob, you like everything! you're... -- LittleBit, 08:25:46 04/19/02 Fri
I've been intrigued by the fact that in Bad Eggs it's Willow who takes down Xander (Bewitched,
Bothered & Bewildered?) and Cordelia who takes out Buffy (The Wish?), since this episode occurs
before Xander and Cordelia hook up.
Also, I must admit to being amused every time by the fact that the girls drag Xander to the
closet, while it takes two guys to drag in Buffy. Wheaties anyone?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Chronology -- d'Herblay, 10:29:49 04/19/02 Fri
"Bad Eggs" comes after "What's My Line, Pt. 2," in which Xander and Cordelia first "hook up." No
one will know about their relationship until "Innocence," though: they're keeping it in the closet at
this point. In fact, I recall a lot of business from "Bad Eggs" involving the broom closet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
**in small voice** "oops." N/T -- LittleBit, 12:14:48 04/19/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Details -- d'Herblay, 11:12:09 04/19/02 Fri
The gang's death was planned in advance...They each killed themselves with the
intention of using that spell to bring them back. And perhaps the way each of them died, after the
first, was a specified way you have to die for the spell to work.
Bob (the corpse in
the varsity jacket, which would be a great name for a mystery) was killed in a liquor store robbery 8
months before. Parker (the more decayed Parker) was thrown off a bridge by a gang called the
Jackals some time before that. Jack was killed in a drive-by just three weeks past.
I'm still having problems grasping this idea that there are only two ways to bring back the dead that
are consistent with Buffyverse mythology. Part of my problem is that not only do we have the
counter-examples of "The Zeppo" and "Some Assembly Required," but "Inca Mummy Girl" as well.
The rest of my problem is that I came into the series long before there was a consistent Buffyverse
mythology. In the early days, the show was using the traditional horror motifs as metaphors for
various travails of adolescence. With giant insects and invisible people and talking ventriloquist
dummies, it was only a matter of time before Mutant Enemy rewrote Frankenstein.
I wonder if your dichotomy (zombie unless killed by mystical energy) might be resolved somewhat by
the point that Daryl, Ampata, and Jack and his gang may have been brought back from the dead,
but they weren't really again alive. Buffy has not been raised from the dead; she's been resurrected.
Dawn wanted her mother back, not a reanimated corpse.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
One difference -- Sophist, 12:53:51 04/19/02 Fri
with Some Assembly Required is that there was no mystical force used. Instead, Chris was a boy
genius who discovered a "scientific" way to revitalize the dead. The only real parallel is with
Adam.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
The Zeppo, Bargaining and astronomy? -- Ixchel, 22:57:38 04/20/02 Sat
Excellent point, d'Herblay, about the difference between Buffy and the others.
Something I've wondered about is the astronomical references in The Zeppo and Bargaining.
In The Zeppo, Jack mentions that he had to "wait till the stars aligned" to "raise" Bob. This seems to
indicate that the spell required some astronomical configuration to work properly.
In Bargaining, Tara states that "Mercury's in retrograde..." when they are discussing being ready to
resurrect Buffy. Is this a requirement for the spell or does it simply enhance the chances of a
successful outcome for the spell (I think the latter)?
There wasn't any reference to stars or planets in SAR (though this is a nonmagical "reanimation") or
in Forever.
IMHO Ampata (IMG) is different. I suggest that her manner of death (whatever it was) transformed
her (like a vampire). And that the seal only paralyzed her (she mentions being aware of what was
going on around her).
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: rob, you like everything! you're... -- Slain, 00:32:04 04/21/02 Sun
I think I come from the same school of thought as Rob - even the worst Buffy episode is still good,
and that magic works better than sci-fi. I don't know why no one else liked 'Reptile Boy', though. I
thought it was great, although maybe that's just because it backed up some of my feminism-in-BtVS
arguments. I dislike scifi because I always think "For fuck's sake, you can't build a robot like that!"
Oddly, 'Ted' managed to get away with it by virtue of being so cool.
Bizarrely, 'AYW' made me like Riley more. Sam was annoying, but only because she came across as
very patronizing.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: So you guys don't like the Make-Your-Own-Girlfriend subgenre? -- Cactus Watcher,
07:55:07 04/19/02 Fri
I wouldn't put 'Some Assembly Required' on a worst list. I sort of liked it. But, I'd never put it on a
best list either... But, tongue firmly planted in cheek, as a genre Make-Your-Own-Girlfriend has
historically left something to be desired. The old TV show 'Living Doll' starring Bob Cummings and
Julie Neumar (sp?) comes to mind. Usually the end-product girl is fine looking, but effectively brain
damaged. Am I the only guy who prefers intelligent women?
I guess the original 'The Bride of Frankenstein' belongs in the Have-Someone-Else-Make-You-a-
Girlfriend subgenre which usually is somewhat more successful both artistically and at the box
office. Have to say I agree more with Spike's taste in ersatz-women than the monster's.
[> [>
Yep have the same problem, how about only six tapes? -- shadowkat, 07:44:12 04/19/02
Fri
Struggling too...I started thinking about it and realized
I was at 30. Of course it doesn't help that I am a huge
fan of just about every season now, and most specifically
the last two.
I do agree with your non-essential list except for:
1. Where the Wild Things Are - need it for Anya/Spike
conversations and scenes - very important character
development for these guys.
2.Shadow - explains Joyce's illness and Riley's problems
with Buffy (so as much as I disliked it - I think it's necessary)
3.Wrecked - this explains Buffy/Spike and Willow, really
lose track of the rest of the season without it.
4. As You Were - very necessary for the last scene and
the Tell Me you Love me scenes. (Yep - wasn't overly fond of it myself, but there you are.)
And actually Doublemeat Palace really improves on a second viewing! I thought it was hilarous the
second time around.
And it is important - for showing the drifting apart of
the SG, Xander's total inability to see past food and fear
of marriage, and why Buffy is working at a crappy job.
Also shows Spike's concern for her working there.
Now essentials:(ugh!)Keeping it down to 4-5 a year might
work-
1. Welcome to HEllmouth/Harvest - need for introduction
of main characters, mythos, and reason Xander hates vampires.
2. Witch - also need for introduction to certain characters
and the fact that there is so much forshadowing to Season 6
3. Angel - explains Angel
4. Nightmares - explains the characters fears and relationships
5. Prophecy Girl - what Buff's purpose is and Xander saving her
Season 2
1. School HArd (introduction of Spike/Dru)
2. Lie to ME (amazing Speech at end and the fact that humans
can be as bad as vamps and clear evidence Spike can love and explanation of Angel and Dru)
3. What's My Line Part II (explanation of Spike/Angel/Dru
and Kendra)
4. PAssion (Death of Jenny)
5. Surprise/Innocence (explanation of Angel/Angelus)
6. Becoming Part I/ Becoming Part II (Origin and Death of
Angelus as well as the truce between B/S)
(okay really wanted Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered and the Dark Age
but will have to live without)
Season 3 (not my favorite year...but hey that's clearly just
me)
1. Faith, Hope and Tricks (very important introduction of
Faith and also Angel returns)
2. Lover's Walk (majorly pivotal episode whose themes continue to echo now. Breaks up everyone
and re-introduces
a new version of Spike)
3. Dopplegangland (explains Anya and Willow and has echos
thematically throughout.)
4. Consequences (Turn of Faith)
5. Graduation Day Part I & II (Buffy tries to kill Faith,
gives herself to Angel to be bitten, destroys the highschool, HArmony gets vamped)
(dang - better year than I thought - had to leave out
Revelations, Wish, Choices, The Zeppo, and Band Candy.)
Season 4
1. The Iniative (return of Spike, explanation of the chip,
and explanation of the whole Riley thing.)
2. Wild at Heart (Oz's leaving- not my fav, but necessary)
3. Something Blue (heavy forshadowing and first indication of Willow's power. Also explains
Anya.)
4. Hush (Buffy and Riley Discover each other and what they each do, Tara and Willow meet.)
5. Primeval/Restless (necessary last battle and explanation
of characters)
Really wanted to include: Pangs, Yoko Factor, New Moon
Rising, The I in Team, The New Man, and The Freshman)
Season 5
1.Out of My Mind ( Spike's revelation and Riley's)
2.No place Like Home (explains Dawn and Glory, don't like it but necessary.)
3. Into the Woods (Riley leaves and why)
4. Fool For Love (Spike's origin and Buffy's difficulties
with slaying)
5. The Body (Joyce's death)
6. The Gift (Buffy's death)
(Dang - I wanted to include Intervention, IWMTY, Real Me, Buffy vs. Dracula, Tough Love, The
Replacement)
Season 6
1. Bargaining Part II (Buffy brought back)
2. Afterlife (Buffy was torn from heaven)
3. Once More with Feeling (all relationships pushed forward)
4. Tabula Rasa (Giles/Tara Leaving, Buffy/Spike)
4. Smashed (Buffy/Spike and Willow with Amy rat
5. Dead Things (first major death and We find out
how Buffy came back)
(and the dang season isn't even over yet! Will probably
have to nix TR..and maybe Dead Things??)
Too dang hard for Buffy fanatic to do this.
[> [>
Essential vs. Enjoyable? -- matching mole, 10:30:07 04/19/02 Fri
There are a number of episodes that I would definitely list as essential Buffy watching that are not
particularly enjoyable (meaning that my urge to watch them again is not that great). And other
episodes that are the opposite, entertaining but certainly not 'essential' in the sense that they add
something to the overall saga that can't be missed.
For example the high school satire aspect of the show which was so strong in S1 and S2 is what
initially attracted me to BtVS. I remember 'Go Fish' as being very enjoyable but I certainly wouldn't
consider it essential. 'Living Conditions' would be an even more extreme example. I don't remember
an episode of BtVS that I enjoyed much more than this (enjoyment being difficult to quantify and all)
but again, it hardly counts as essential.
On the opposite pole would be the final episode or two of most seasons with the notable exceptions of
'Restless' and the last two episodes of season 2. These are certainly excellent and essential but I
generally find myself less inclined to rewatch them.
If I am in a charitable mood (towards myself) I say that this is due to my preference for narrative in
a lower key and for questions more than answers. If I am less charitable I'd say it was due to my
inherently shallow nature.
[> [> [>
Re: Essential vs. Enjoyable? -- mundusmundi, 12:46:58 04/19/02 Fri
Good distinction. One could argue "Wrecked" is an essential episode, but I would not want to see
"Wrecked" had I somehow seen "Wrecked" before actually seeing it. OTOH, "The Zeppo," while not
being particularly essential other than to the vigorously persecuted pro-Xander minority (the
Albigensians of the Buffyverse, what with their heretical penchants for sardonic quips, leaving their
ex-vengeance demon girlfriends at the altar ,and lying to their Slayers just before off to fight their
soulless bloodthirsty yet cute-as-the-dickens vampire ex-boyfriends), is so endlessly enjoyable my
face damn near hurts from grinning every time I watch it. I'm almost tempted to argue that the
enjoyable is always essential, except that path would lead to Zoolander.
[> [> [> [>
I agree. -- Isabel, 21:34:32 04/20/02 Sat
Crush, The Body, As You Were, Angel, Passions... They are all pivotal to the series, in one way or
another, but I CAN'T bear to watch them again. (For differing reasons.)
Angel- yes, I know so many people LOVE this episode. I think it's because I saw the aching end of
their relationship first, so I just yell to Buffy to 'Run, Don't get involved with that guy!'
I'm so bad about As You Were that for a tape I'm making for a friend who can't see Buffy this year,
it'll be the only one I don't take the commercials out of so I don't have to watch it.
(I liked Zoolander too, but I think we're in a minority.)
[> [> [>
Me too! Inessential everytime! -- Rahael, 09:46:04 04/21/02 Sun
I've been able to keep track of which Buffy episodes I still repeatedly watch, because I've had the box
sets for so long.
I've noticed that I very rarely watch those eps which develop the major season arcs. I watch filler eps
repeatedly. I often fast forward over major moments, and plot exposition. I'll confess that before I
started to look again at the Spike character in Season 4/5, any Spike scenes warranted instant fast
forward. Yeah, yeah I know. Sacrilege! Bad Spike just was uninteresting to me. I was never
particularly found the evil thing attractive. Angelus was amusing but nothing more.
I watch the Gift and The Body a lot, but Passion, rarely. I watch When She was Bad and Dead Man's
Party far more often than the finale of Season 2. I like Reptile Boy! and Beer Bad! And I'll confess
that I never really connected to Bad Spike or Eliza Dushku as Faith. I know! Sacrilege. Maybe I just
can't recognize good acting!
At the end of the day, I watch BtVS for Buffy, Willow, Giles, Xander and Cordelia., Wesley and Angel
(Let's add Anya and Tara after they become Scoobies). Great lines, a bitter sweet mood and great
outfits kind of become a hall mark of the eps I rewatch the most. (Reptile Boy! - great final outfit by
Buffy, and Cordelia always looks glam. Plus, the Angel/Coffee/Willow diatribe. "No Assembly
Required" - that's the moment I became a secret Cordy/Angel shipper)
Though I love Season 6, there is just too much Spike and too little Giles! and though I love AtS, I
wonder wistfully what BtVS would be like with Cordelia still around.
[> [>
The Subtlety of Buffy -- Eric, 19:45:42 04/20/02 Sat
I will submit that there is no such thing as inessential Buffy. Yes, there are eps that don't exactly
measure up. But each one always includes either a vignette concerning the season's overarching
storyline or a strong character definer. Usually both. The sum of these episodes mixed with the
brilliant ones tend to suck you in. That's how Buffy went from the "cute thing I watch when nothing
else in particular is on" to "my absolute favorite TV show of all time".
[>
What we need is... -- Kitt, 15:05:46 04/19/02 Fri
an All-Buffy All the time Network! They could show all the episodes, in order, then the movie, then
run 'em all over again! I figured it out, it would take 4.8 days to do all the eps to date, so throw in
the movie and we get to see our favorite episodes every five days!
:)
Of course, if we wanted to add Angel, it'ld probably be once a week (or less), but I think I could
handle that to know that my Buffy fix was never more than a click away.
[> [>
Now that is a brilliant idea... -- Rob, 17:26:42 04/20/02 Sat
I would suggest throwing the "Angel" eps in there too, alternating "Buffy"/"Angel" eps starting in the
fourth season...It would help for the continuity, especially for the crossover events.
Rob
[> [>
I vote for Buffy - On Demand -- LittleBit, 19:53:04 04/20/02 Sat
[>
Re: Which 15 episodes would you pick for... -- JCC, 11:17:54 04/21/02 Sun
1. Welcome to the Hellmouth/the Harvest
2.Prophecy Girl
3.School Hard
4.Suprise/Innocence
5.Becoming part 1/Becoming part 2
6. Faith Hope & Trick
7.Concequences
8.Graduation Day 1/2
9.The Initiative
10.Primeval
11.No place like home
12.Crush
13.The Gift
14.Bargaining
15.Once more with feeling
Current board
| More April 2002