April 2002 Archives

April 2002 posts

Previous April 2002
More April 2002

BtVS Season 1 DVD Commentaries -- Marie, 05:50:26 04/26/02 Fri

Exclusive Interview with Joss Whedon and David Boreanaz

JW Commentary on Welcome to the Hellmouth

Special Interview with JW on:

WthH / The Harvest / Witch / Never Kill a Boy... / Angel / The Puppet Show

I wonder if these have already been posted? And whether anyone is interested in reading them. I know Rahael has done some commentaries, and I did one for Room w/a Vu, but they disappeared very quickly into the archives, with not many comments. It's a lot of work, but I'll do it if people are reading them! (Not a moan, quite willing, but don't want to waste my time, either!).

Marie

[> The episode commentaries were posted -- Vickie, 08:27:31 04/26/02 Fri

Don't remember which kind soul did the work. It's in the archives, almost certainly.

[> Re: BtVS Season 1 DVD Commentaries -- Miss Edith, 16:46:50 04/26/02 Fri

I would be interested in the Joss Whedon interviews on the individual episodes as they weren't included on the UK DVDs. I would very much appreciate it if you were willing to type them up. Thanks in advance.

The serious continuity error in 'Normal Again' -- Liam, 07:45:57 04/26/02 Fri

I was watching the episode and was annoyed at the serious lack of continuity when Buffy admitted to Willow that her parents had put her in a mental institution for two weeks when she was 15 and talked about being the Slayer. If this was the case, why didn't we see the following in 'Becoming, Part 2', after Joyce saw Buffy dusting a vampire:

1. Joyce, now that she saw that Buffy was telling the truth all along, apologised.
2. Joyce didn't have a row with Buffy, and didn't throw her out of the house; so Buffy didn't run away to LA.

The tenor of the end of the second and the start of the third season would therefore have been very different. Perhaps 'Becoming, Part 2' ends with Buffy and her mother (and perhaps her father) crying together.

P.S. If Buffy was imagining things to feel better, while I can understand her imagining herself as a hero, why would she want to imagine some of the things in the last six years, such as having Mr. Finn for a boyfriend? :)

[> No error necessary -- Sophist, 08:18:01 04/26/02 Fri

Rob usually responds to these kinds of questions, but I thought I'd jump in and give it a try.

This issue was discussed before, after the episode first aired. There are 2 possible explanations, neither of which involves any continuity error.

1. Some of SunnydaleBuffy's statements seemed delusional and based on leakage from the asylumverse. That could have happened here.

2. Buffy said her parents "forgot" about the whole incident after she came out of the asylum. This repression is a natural reaction to an unpleasant incident. The parents may even have felt that referring to it might cause a recurrence of the original problem. Thus, Joyce was unlikely to mention it.

In fact, in the scene in Becoming II, Joyce did say "Buffy you need help", which certainly could be an oblique reference to the previous incident.

Lastly, given the state of denial of Sunnydale residents which is inherent in the show, it's expecting a lot for Joyce to reorient her thinking so quickly based on one incident. In S3, of course, she did, but even then there were limits.

Loved your last line.

[> Re: The serious continuity error in 'Normal Again' -- Darby, 08:26:35 04/26/02 Fri

That point has been discussed here extensively, back when the ep aired, and there was much division of opinion as to how it could be explained. The most common were:

- It was part of the demon-induced hallucination; Buffy believed it had happened, but it hadn't.

- It had actually happened, but Joyce, Queen of Denial, and her protege Buffy, had repressed the memory so efficiently that Buffy had no inclination to ever mention it to her friends (common in such events) and Joyce was still unwilling to accept the implications even when the truth was dusty in front of her. I would add that a 2-week hospital stay 3 years before could have seemed less monumental to Joyce (and not immediately demand an apology) than it might have to Buffy. There is both support and refutation for this explanation in earlier episodes if you look.

- Your assertion, that it's a major blooper. But it's not like ME has shown any inclination to lose sleep over such lapses - someone on the staff (typical for me, I forget who) so much as said in an interview that they don't sweat the details and figure that any fans (or groups, mentioning no boards by name of course, but we know who we are) interested enough can rationalize such things away anyway.

[> [> Re: The serious continuity error in 'Normal Again' -- shadowkat, 08:41:54 04/26/02 Fri

I agree with Sophist. In rewatching Becoming PArt II -
I noticed that Joyce does say: We can get you help. Solve
this "implied mental delusion".
After her daughter tells her that she's the slayer.
It helps that Joyce saw her kill a vamp and Spike is there.
Actually I'm not sure Joyce would have believed her
if it weren't for Spike's presence.

But here's the whole Becoming dialogue if you want a reference (from Psyche's Transcripts) :
Joyce: (still confused) Honey, a-are you sure you're a Vampire Slayer?

Spike: I'll take her out of the country. You'll never hear from us
again, I *bloody* well hope.

Buffy: (ignores her mother) Fine. Get back to the mansion. Make sure
Giles is all right.

Joyce: I-I mean, have you tried *not* being a Slayer?

They both look at her.

Buffy: Mom!

Spike sighs in exasperation of Joyce.

Buffy: (to Spike) Be ready to back me up when I make my move.

He walks around her toward the door.

Buffy: If Giles dies... (Spike stops and faces her) she dies.

He gives her a final stare and heads out the door.

Joyce: (trying to make sense of it) It's because you didn't have a
strong father figure, isn't it?

Buffy: It's just fate, Mom. I'm the Slayer. Accept it.

Joyce: We should call the police. (heads for the kitchen)

Buffy: No. We're not calling the police.

Joyce: (stops and faces her daughter, smiling) Well, now that we know
that you're innocent, it's...

Buffy: What? You thought I was guilty? Jeez, feelin' the love in *this*
room!

Joyce: No, I didn't think that. It's just... now we have proof.

Buffy: (exasperated) We have my word, Mom. Not proof.

Joyce: (heads for the kitchen again) Look, I am sure that they will
understand.

Buffy: (follows closely) Get them involved, you'll get them killed.

Joyce: Well, you're not gonna hurt them, are you?

Buffy: I'm a Slayer, not a postal worker.

Her mother picks up the phone, and Buffy slaps her hand onto the switch
hook.

Buffy: Cops can't fight demons. (takes the phone from her mom) I have
to do it. (puts the phone back in its cradle)

Joyce: (demanding) Do what? Buffy, what is happening?

Buffy: (doesn't want to deal) Just have another drink.

She turns away from her mother and starts to walk off. Joyce throws her
glass aside in anger, and it breaks on the floor.

Joyce: Don't you talk to me that way! (Buffy stops in her tracks) You
don't get to just dump something like this on me and pretend it's
nothing!

Buffy: (looks at her) I'm sorry, Mom, but I don't have time for this.
(starts for the door again, but stops)

Joyce: No! I am tired of 'I don't have time' or-or 'you wouldn't
understand.' (Buffy faces her) I am your mother, and you will *make*
time to explain yourself.

Buffy: I told you. I'm a Vampire Slayer.

Joyce: (haughtily) Well, I just don't accept that!

Buffy: (steps closer) Open your eyes, Mom. What do you think has been
going on for the past two years? The fights, the weird occurrences. How
many times have you washed blood out of my clothing, and you still
haven't figured it out?

Joyce: (raises her voice angrily) Well, it stops now!

Buffy: (raises her voice also) No, it doesn't stop! It *never* stops!
Do-do you think I chose to be like this? Do you have any idea how lonely
it is, how dangerous? I would *love* to be upstairs watching TV or
gossiping about boys or... God, even studying! But I have to save the
world... again.

Joyce: No. This is insane. (takes Buffy by the shoulders) Buffy, you
need help.

Buffy: (throws off her mom's arms) I'm *not* crazy! What I need is for
you to chill. I *have* to go!

Joyce: (shakes her head) No. I am not letting you out of this house.

Buffy: You can't stop me.

Joyce: (grabs her) Oh yes I...

So you see, no continuity error.

[> [> Rob to the Rescue! -- Rob, 08:46:38 04/26/02 Fri

As Sophist said, if you read the shooting script of "Becoming II" (you can check it out at www.studiesinwords.de) there are spots where it can be read either way. Now, I doubt this was meant when the scene was first written, but if the writers actually did go back and check out this scene when writing "Normal Again" that there is enough ambiguity in a few spots to make it work. When a vamp first jumps out at Joyce, her stunned face could not be just that there was a vampire in front of her, but that Buffy had been telling the truth. Another is what Sophist mentioned, that Joyce asks if Buffy needs help. Another spot, Joyce asks if Buffy's sure she's the Slayer. Now, that line could mean, if NA had a continuity error, that Joyce is questioning what Buffy just told her for the first time, but, if NA's assertion is not an error, then it could be Joyce again confronting this "Slayer" issue she heard so long ago. "Are you sure?"

I am actually split myself over this thought, and another, which I believe, would adequately explain away the whole problem.

Here are Buffy's exact words to Willow:

"Back when I saw my first vampires... I got so scared. I
told my parents about it. And they freaked out. Figured there was something seriously wrong with me. They sent me to a clinic."

Notice, she does not say she told her parents she was a Slayer. Although that may be implied, but just reading the words themselves, it sounds like she told her parents she saw vampires. That would be enough for them to think she needed medical help.

This is what I thought when first I first saw the episode, but then I didn't rewatch it and most people here assumed it was an error. But re-reading it now, I think that that is the best explanation. That would fit in even better with the scene in "Becoming" than if you assume Buffy told Joyce that she was a Slayer from the start. She probably wouldn't have told her family everything, anyway, because, if our Buffy's storyline follows, even sketchilly that of the movie Buffy, her watcher told her that she would be putting anyone she told about her secret identity at risk. So maybe she thought telling about the vamps was okay. She wouldn't, however, have put her family at risk.

So that's my theory, and I'm stickin' to it. Of course, this scene may have also been put in by the writers as a subtle clue that Sunnydale is the real world, and this was part of Assylum delusions seeping through, but I personally think it's far more fascinating to think that it really happened.

Rob

[> [> [> Still not quite convinced -- Liam, 09:48:08 04/26/02 Fri

Rob, thank you for taking the trouble to tell me your theory. You say that Buffy might have told her parents about vampires, but not about her identity as a Slayer, which would have been enough for them to put her in a mental institution.

Surely, though, Merrick might have asked her not to talk about _anything_ related to slaying, such as the existence of vampires, on the grounds that they (her parents) would put restrictions on her freedom of movement, which would interfere with her ability to slay.

[> [> [> [> Probably, but... -- dream of the consortium, 10:08:56 04/26/02 Fri

since when has Buffy done everything her Watcher told her to do?

I am sure she would make the decision about what to tell to whom based on her own judgment - as she did with her peers in Sunnydale. In fact, I rather like the idea that she "tested the waters" with her parents, and they flipped out and sent her off to an institution. It explains in part why she was unable to tell her mom when so many of her friends knew. That is one of the aspects of the show that you don't necessarily consider strange while watching, simply because it seems so natural for teenagers to hide so much of their lives from their parents. But, when you think about it, Joyce is fairly open-minded (compared to, say, my own parents, who probably would call an exorcist under similar circumstances). And Buffy could prove things - her Slayer strength could be demonstrated, she could probably even come up with a vampire demo. The argument that her mother would be in more danger if she knew what was going on interests me - knowledge is dangerous, a whiff of the apple here? I think that's part of what's going on, but I think the idea that her parents had violently rejected the very idea of vampires, without even having to deal with the idea that their daughter was chosen to fight them and would most likely die young as a result, goes a long way toward explaining why Buffy couldn't trust Joyce.

[> [> [> [> [> Or she might not've known she was the slayer yet. -- yez, 14:35:29 04/26/02 Fri

If we're filling in the blanks to avoid admitting a discrepancy, then why not just decide that Buffy saw vampires before even getting the vaugest inkling that she was a slayer? Maybe she was a very little girl. Maybe she fought them off or evaded them -- nascent slayer abilities poking through. Then, terrified, she told what she saw, naturally. And naturally, her parents thought she was having "issues," and they sent her for help. And then they all tried to forget all about it.

Maybe it all happened when Buffy was so young that she just forgot about it over time, and it took this delusion to shake up the memories. Or maybe it's only now that Buffy recognizes what she saw back then as vampires -- she may have just thought of them and reported them as generalized spooky monsters.

If that was the case, then Buffy and Joyce may not have immediately associated what was happening with Spike et al. with what Buffy experienced back then.

Personally, though, I think it was all an afterthought. If any of these theories were the case, it would've been very easy for the writers to drop a clue, even just by giving Buffy some kind of "oh my god, all these memories are just flooding back in" kind of expression on her face or tone in her voice when she's introducing this new fact. Or a simple: "Yes... yes I was. It was when I saw my first vampires. I didn't know what they were, what I was... I got so scared. I told my parents about the monsters. And they freaked out. Figured there was something seriously wrong with me. They sent me to a clinic."

Because they didn't, it just looks sloppy, IMHO.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm puzzled -- Sophist, 17:17:52 04/26/02 Fri

Your next to last paragraph says:

If any of these theories were the case, it would've been very easy for the writers to drop a clue, even just by giving Buffy ... a simple: "Yes... yes I was. It was when I saw my first vampires. I didn't know what they were, what I was... I got so scared. I told my parents about the monsters. And they freaked out. Figured there was something seriously wrong with me. They sent me to a clinic."

But according to Psyche's transcript, they did put exactly that line in:

"Back when I saw my first vampires... (shot of the photo) I got so scared. I told my parents ... and they completely freaked out. They thought there was something seriously wrong with me. So they sent me to a clinic."

Did I miss something?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm puzzled -- yez, 21:02:54 04/26/02 Fri

IMHO, adding in just something as simple as "I didn't know what they were, what I was..." and "... about the monsters," coupled with, as I said, a delivery that implied that forgotten memories were resurfacing, would've made it seem more plausible that the clinic stay was never mentioned before by Buffy or Joyce. To me there's a difference.

yez

[> [> [> [> [> [> But yez... -- Rob, 19:51:09 04/26/02 Fri

You're assuming that the idea that Buffy didn't tell her parents about the slayage but did about vamps is an expostulation from the script. In my mind, it is clearly in the script: "Back when I saw my first vampires... (shot of the photo) I got so scared. I told my parents ... and they completely freaked out. They thought there was something seriously wrong with me. So they sent me to a clinic."

What is an expostulation is the idea that she also told them that she was a Slayer. That is something the viewer may have inserted, but it was never expressly said. All Buffy said was she got scared of her first vamps, so told her parents about them.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But yez... -- yez, 21:16:28 04/26/02 Fri

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. You're differentiating between slayage and being the Slayer? And I'm not sure how this pertains. Anyway, I agree with you that there's no way we can know if she also told them she was the Slayer.

I was trying to say that there's no way we can know that *Buffy* even knew she was the Slayer when all this went down. In other words, that line Buffy gives us no way of pinpointing when this happened. Could've been before, during or after. Who knows.

But for me, the only way I can find it believable that neither Buffy nor Joyce ever brought up the clinic thing before this is to imagine that it all must've happened, as I said, before Buffy had a clear understanding of slayage or being the Slayer, and likely before she even had a clear understanding/belief in vampires.

It's all speculation on my part, basically. Stuff I have to add in for me to still find it credible and consistent.

yez

[> [> [> Supporting Rob's Theory -- Ixchel, 20:47:36 04/26/02 Fri

I believe the clinic stay was "real". I also agree with Rob that Buffy only told her parents that vampires are real, not about being the Slayer. She may have gone to Joyce and Hank in fear, hoping they could reassure her. Their reaction would have killed any thoughts of telling them about her being the Slayer (if she was even considering revealing the secret).

Here's something I posted back in March explaining why I think the clinic mention is not an error:

*Regarding the clinic stay, at first I found it incongruous with previous events (as you point out), but after some thought (and reference to RL experience and other posters' convincing points about familial denial) I believe it explains many things and does "fit". That Joyce was so surprised in B2 could now be interpreted as shock that Buffy's delusions are frighteningly real (vampires). Her never referencing the clinic stay afterwards (that we saw) could be further denial (how could Joyce have locked up her daughter for speaking the truth?). Also, perhaps too much guilt for her to bear would have been dredged up by excavating this after her "don't think about coming back" speech at the end of B2 and her being already shaken by the violent alteration of her worldview. So it does work for me, especially by explaining a lot about Buffy (JMHO, of course).*

IMHO, the clinic stay explains a great deal about Buffy's psyche. I believe she learned a harsh "lesson" at that time. She is frightened and overwhelmed, so she tells her parents that vampires exist (disturbing truth). Her parents react by sending her to a clinic (abandoning and rejecting her). Once she quits talking about vampires (creates a surface of normalcy), her parents accept her again. The simple lesson here is that if you reveal disturbing truths to your loved ones, they will withdraw their love and turn away from you. If you present a facade of normalcy, you can maintain their love. This perhaps explains Buffy's tendency towards secrecy regarding things she knows will upset her loved ones (examples: Angel's return, S3 and her involvement with Spike, S6).

Ixchel

[> Re: The serious continuity error in 'Normal Again' -- Robert, 10:45:31 04/26/02 Fri

I do not consider this a continuity error for the good reasons provided in the postings above. If I suffered any cognitive dissonance at all, my brain snuffed it out within mere milliseconds.

Regardless, to call this a "serious continuity error" is a gross exaggeration. I justify my claim with the following points.

1. This error does not impact or affect or invalidate, in any substantial way, the show as we have seen it for the past five and a half seasons.

2. This error will likely have no impact on the show for the remainder of this season or the show.

There are still some individuals who consider the whole existence of Dawn as a continuity error. Now that could be considered an example of a serious continuity error.

[> [> Can anyone explain this? -- Liam, 11:51:34 04/26/02 Fri

Buffy mentioned vampires in two episodes, and Joyce didn't freak out and threaten to send her back to the mental institution:

1. The Witch:

Buffy: (cuts her off) Mom, you just don't get it. And, believe me, you don't want it. Y'know, there are just some things about being a Vampire Slayer that the older generation...

Joyce: A what?

Buffy: It's a... long story.

Joyce: Buffy, are you feeling well?

Buffy: What? Oh, I'm, I'm fine, y'know? What, like, I can't be in a good mood? Is it, like, a new house rule? Fine, y'know? It's just fine, fine, fine, 'cause... I'm a macho, macho man! I want to be a macho man! (bobs her head) Macho, macho man! (leaves the kitchen) I want to be a
macho man!

2. Bad Eggs:

Joyce: (sternly) A little responsibility is all I ask. Honestly, don't you ever think about anything besides boys and clothes?

Buffy: Saving the world from vampires?

Joyce: (crosses her arms and shakes her head) I swear, sometimes I don't know what goes on in your head.

Buffy just looks back at her.

For the above reasons, as well as others mentioned, I feel that it was a mistake by the writer to have the piece where Buffy told Willow that she was sent to a mental institution at 15.

[> [> [> I still don't see the problem -- Sophist, 13:01:15 04/26/02 Fri

Both situations you mention were played as Buffy making a frivolous response to her mother. In both cases, Joyce's reaction suggested that Buffy was making crazy talk. Interpreting them in light of NA, we could say:

1. Buffy was testing the limits of what she could say to her mother.

2. Joyce was concerned but unwilling to threaten a repeat of an unpleasant, even horrific, experience.

[> [> [> [> Re: I still don't see the problem -- dream of the consortium, 13:57:12 04/26/02 Fri

I'm with you on this (as usual, Sophist - we seem to much on the same wavelength).

I remember my ex-sister-in-law making jokes around the dinner table about a certain incident from just one year before involving her fifteen-year-old self, her best friend, and two bottles of vodka. The family laughed it off (except the mother, who rolled her eyes and told her not to push her luck). Of course, at the time of the incident, there was talk of sending her to rehab. So the difference between a "freaked out" Buffy claiming to have seen vampires, and a happy Buffy saying something off-hand about vampires seems to justify the difference in Joyce's responses. At least to me.

[> let's go with metaphor here... -- heather galaxy, 14:25:58 04/26/02 Fri

now as many people have noticed, buffy's coming out as a slayer can be seen as analogous to coming out as queer...

in real life, many people who are queer have incidents where they drop huge boulder-sized clues on their parents who, if they are ignorant, either ignore them or send them to therapy, or worse... often parents will send their kids to therapy, only to "forget" that they ever did such a thing. many people pretend that if they ignore something it will just go away...

sometimes one brings up queer related things in jest or lightly to test the waters... or, sometimes they tell their parents exactly what they are feeling only to be shut out, kicked out, or sent away...

i think this is what happened in buffy's case... then when they come back "cured" the parents forget it ever happened...

don't ever underestimate parent's powers of denial...

h

(who once told her mom years and years ago, that she had spent the weekend helping out with gay pride week activities... to which her mom said "that's nice that they let straight people help out..." say it with me: d.e.n.i.a.l.!)

[> [> or Buffy's smart mouth? -- Vickie, 15:28:43 04/26/02 Fri

Buffy is often a wiseacre. Joyce knows this. Parents of this kind of child often just ignore wisecracks- -especially if they consider them tasteless. It's the "do not incorrige" principle.

Assume that Buffy really did go into an asylum at fifteen after insisting she saw vampires (I see dead people). And assume that, once she learned not to talk about vampires, she was "cured." Given those, she might flippantly refer to vampires to get on her mom's nerve. And Joyce might pointedly ignore the comments.

I'm not saying she did. I really think Buffy was (as you perhaps were) trying to drop a shoe to her Mom, clue her in gently so they could talk about things. But, if Buffy did get treatment, Joyce could easily excuse the comments in this way.

V.
"She's incorrigible. Do not incorrige."

[> [> agreed Heather galaxy -- mucifer, 08:21:19 04/27/02 Sat

I total agree Heathergal. It was very clear the coming out subtext in "Becoming" and I was suprised many people didnt get it. I was glad when Joss did clearly discuss it in an old NPR interview. I dont think it has any forshadowing to "normal again".

I do however see the forshadowing in Buffy's catatonic behavior towards the end of season 5. Only Willow was able to pull her out of it (adding more layers to Willow's use of magic). That episode to me demonstrates the possibitlity that buffy has a past of mental illness making the nerd spell to make buffy crazy all the more powerful and interesting.

[> [> Perhaps foreshadowing this very point -- Sophist, 08:43:44 04/27/02 Sat

was the coming out theme with Larry starting in Phases. Was that intended to prime us to see Buffy following a similar path in Becoming?

Restless: Buffy's Dream- Rejecting the Hands (Long!! Spoilers to Normal Again only) -- shadowkat, 08:13:52 04/26/02 Fri

Restless: Leaving Childhood Behind � Part IV: Buffy�s Dream � The Hands

(All Btvs quotes come from Psyche Transcripts. I also want to thank Lanna De La Rossa and Rosalind for the inspiration.)

We know what mind, heart, and spirit mean, but do we understand the meaning of Manus: the hands? First Manus � is Latin for hand. Some cultures, including our own, see the hands as a source of healing, example: laying down of the hands? Or in massage � if you press on certain points on the hand you can relieve pain. In many western religions, such as Muslim, Christianity, Judaism � hands can be interpreted as a means of uniting followers or of receiving instruction. While in Eastern philosophy such as China�s Tao Te Ching � the right hand corresponds with the principle of action, the left with wisdom or non-action. In India, the left hand is associated with lunar quality of desire and emotion, the right with solar principle of action. Some yoga schools believe that each finger on the hand corresponds with a different element: thumb with fire, the forefinger with ether, the middle finger with water, the ring finger with earth, the little finger with air. An enormous amount of energy flows through our hands � energy to heal, to create, to balance, to communicate, and to transform. They are our most powerful interface with the world and with others. (Taken from The Hand as a Microcosm at www.sol.com/kor/12_01.htm..)

In Season 4, Btvs, it is made clear that Buffy is the Hand. She is Manus. The card with one hand open and one closed like a fist. She uses her hands to slay the demons and her hand to remove Adam�s heart. But it is equally made clear that the hands cannot act alone. They need mind, spirit and heart. Without the other three � she could use them in the wrong manner. And what happens when she doesn�t use her hands? When they are chopped off? Or she rejects them? Or when she forgets that hands are used to unite and heal as well as destroy? The SG puts themselves time and again into Buffy�s hands. And Buffy unites them, all of them, Xander, Willow, Giles, Anya, Tara, Spike, Dawn.... Even when she was dead, they stayed united in her name. What happens when you lose the hand? Does the world enter into chaos? Isn�t the hand the means of keeping the balance, of keeping order? This seemed to be the result in Bargaining, when the SG lost the Hand. Demon Bikers roamed Sunnydale and trashed the town, not a pleasant image. (See Bargaining Part I & II, Season 6, Btvs.)

Yet the Hand cannot act alone, it needs mind, heart, and spirit to guide it. All must act as one, united. In Yoko Factor after Buffy insists on attacking Adam by herself � Willow states: �Oh, great. And then when you have your new "no arms" we can all say "Gee, it's a good thing we weren't there getting in the way of that!"� If Buffy acted alone without the mind, heart, and spirit currently encompassed by her friends, she may have lost her arms or hands.

When we grow up, we have to learn how to incorporate mind and heart and spirit in ourselves. We have to sometimes act alone, independent of the group. We have to know how to depend on ourselves. Buffy has gotten used to depending on Xander�s heart, Willow�s moral spirit, and Giles� mind for far too long. She longs for those easy days of high school when they all met in the library and planned their attacks on the demon world. But childhood ends sooner or later and people move on and you have to learn how to incorporate some of these skills in yourself. In season 6, her friends reluctantly meet at the Magic Box to help but they clearly have lives outside of slaying. Slaying was not their sworn duty. They are not the Slayer or the Hand. They can help, provide support, but they can no longer be a major part of it. It is long past time for Buffy to learn how to handle the job on her own.

In each of their dreams, the first slayer attempts to warn Xander, Willow and even Giles that continuing on this path could lead to their deaths. Your magic won�t help you, Willow. Your heart won�t protect you, Xander. Your mind won�t guide you, Giles. The slayer must act alone, at times between worlds; she is of the world and outside the world. If you continue to take an active role in this battle, you will be destroyed. You cannot hope to know the source of our power, or for that matter understand it.

Neither for that matter, does Buffy. Up until now I was convinced the theme was like that old Beatles song � all I need is a little help from my friends. Or that line Buffy sings in OMWF � �what can�t we face if we�re together?� Now, I�m beginning to see that some things particularly in adulthood - have to be done on one�s own. The hero�s journey is often a solitary one. This does not mean, however, that you can�t have companions or friends traveling along the path with you, just that in the final battle � you are alone. You are making the journey. Just as Willard in Apocalypse Now must go on alone to confront Kurtz. At the end of his journey, his companions are no longer with him. The final part of the journey is his alone.

But being alone and abandoned is what Buffy fears most. It is what she has always feared. And it plays a central role in her dream. In Fear Itself � her mother assures her: �I will *always* be here for you. And you got Mr. Giles and your friends. Believe me, there is nothing to be afraid of.�(Season 4, btvs) But the little fear demon warns her: �They�re all going to abandon you, you know.� This explains why Buffy reacts the way she does. Her dream like those of the other three Scoobies, centers on what she said in Yoko Factor: �So . . . I guess I'm starting to understand why there's no ancient prophecy about a Chosen One . . and her friends.�

Buffy�s Dream � Rejecting the Hands

Buffy�s dream starts in her dorm room not the Summer�s House. It�s interesting that both Willow and Buffy start out in the dorm. It is also interesting that none of Buffy�s close friends: Giles, Willow or Xander really appear in her dream. Anya is her dorm roommate not Willow. She is facing Willow�s bed, but Anya is the occupant. In the first scene Anya is trying to wake Buffy up.

ANYA: (whispers) Buffy, you have to wake up right away!
BUFFY: I'm not really in charge of these things. (Closes eyes)

This is the first time Buffy rejects the advice of a guide in her dream. She rejects it by denying responsibility even for something as simple as waking up. I�m not in control she says. Leave me alone. An attitude that reminds me of this season - from Afterlife through Normal Again � Buffy has been acting like someone else is in charge. It�s as if Season 5�s take-charge attitude did her in. She had to take charge of Dawn, handle Dawn not being real but a key, protect Dawn, deal with her mother�s death, help Riley, fight the Knights, handle Spike�s sudden devotion to her and somehow use it to her advantage, keep the peace between the SG, and save the world again, this time by sacrificing her life for her sister. Buffy thought she was done. Finished. She was at peace. In heaven. Until her friends tore her back to their reality. Woke her up. (Bargaining Part II and Afterlife, Season 6 Btvs. ) It�s not the first time they did it either � way back in Prophecy Girl (Season 1 Btvs), Xander brought her back to life after the Master killed her. (She was supposed to have died then, that had been the Prophecy.) So it�s understandable that her first response is to ignore Anya and go back to sleep. But the first slayer won�t let her � when Buffy rolls onto her back she sees its face snarling down at her.

The scene then shifts to Buffy�s room, but it�s not her room, it�s the room Buffy and Faith were in during Faith�s dream in This Year�s Girl (Season 4, Btvs). It�s Joyce�s den. And Buffy is lying in the same bed she made with Faith in Faith�s dream.

(Cut to Buffy standing in the doorway of the bedroom, looking at the bed.)
BUFFY: Faith and I just made that bed. (Shot of the bed, still rumpled but now without Buffy in it.)
TARA: (offscreen) For who?
BUFFY: I thought you were here to tell me.
BUFFY: (looking back at bed) The guys aren't here, are they? We were gonna hang out (looks at Tara) and, watch movies t-
TARA: You lost them.
BUFFY: No. (Looks confused) No. I think they need me to find them.

Once again Tara is used as a guide. Buffy and Willow�s dreams parallel one another: Willow�s starts in her bedroom with Tara while Buffy�s starts in her dorm room. Tara asks both girls if they know who they are and what�s to come and appears to try to warn them about what lies ahead. In both dreams Tara seems almost ghostlike, like a spirit that is outside the action of the dream, unaffected by it. In Willow�s dream Tara asks about their cat and shouldn�t they give the cat a name. In Buffy�s dream Tara asks whom they made the bed for. Both Willow and Buffy think Tara will provide the answers but she just provides more questions. The other parallel is with Xander � Xander is also looking for his friends in his dream, Joyce informs him that they�ve left, just as Tara informs Buffy that she has lost them. The difference is that Xander is afraid of being left behind, Buffy is afraid of losing them. What does Spike say to her in Smashed (Season 6 Btvs.)? �Poor little lost girl, got no one to love?� And what happens in Normal Again? (The following occurs in the asylum reality � the world with Buffy�s parents and the safe hospital. Buffy appears to be hallucinating this reality due to a demon toxin that she has been poisoned with. The Doctor is discussing what keeps dragging Buffy back to the world of Sunnydale, which the Doctor considers the false reality.)

DOCTOR: Yes ... but I'm talking about those things you want there. What keeps you going back.
BUFFY: My friends.
DOCTOR: That's right. Last summer, when you had a momentary awakening, it was them that pulled you back in.

She can�t lose them. She is desperately afraid of losing them. Someone asked why Buffy has kept her current relationship with Spike a secret from her friends � and I think this is the key. Fear of losing them. Fear of being rejected. Of being abandoned. Of being the �poor little lost girl�. So if she�s lost them, she needs to find them, it�s what she believes is her mission. Finding her friends. But is it? Really?

BUFFY: (upset) It's so late.
TARA: Oh ... that clock's completely wrong. Here. (Shot of Tara's hands holding out the Tarot card "Manus" (the hands). It has a picture of two hands crossed, one open, the other balled into a fist.)
BUFFY: I'm never gonna use those.
TARA: You think you know ... what's to come ... what you are. You haven't even begun.(Shot of the bed, now neatly made.)
BUFFY: I think I need to go find the others.(She leaves.)
TARA (softly) Be back before dawn.

Tara tries to tell Buffy that finding her friends isn�t what�s really important here. What�s important � is �the hands.� What Buffy is. Just as what was important in Willow dream was what Willow really is. But Buffy rejects the Hands. Buffy�s more worried about the time and finding her friends � both items that Tara dismisses as unimportant, handing her the Manus card instead. (Which may actually be the key to finding her friends, if Buffy would only take it. After all the closed fist and open hand symbolize uniting that which is within with that which is without. The interior world with the exterior world.) �I�m never gonna use those,� Buffy says instead. It�s the first time Buffy rejects the hands � the slayer. She does it at least twice more in her dream. Just as Xander circles three times back to his basement, avoiding the stairs, and Willow has people mention how she is still in costume at least three times, before it is finally ripped off. In response to Buffy�s statement, Tara says the same line that is later echoed by Dracula: �You think you know ... what you are ... what's to come. You haven't even begun.� (This line is stated at least twice in Restless. It is important to remember what is repeated in each dream. Xander: �that�s not the way out.� Willow: �again these are just my clothes, not a costume�.)

Buffy may not pay attention to Tara in Restless, but she does pay attention to Dracula. It scares her that she doesn�t understand what she is. The hunger that Dracula senses inside her worries her. Even though she fights him off and tells him it doesn�t matter and he doesn�t know her at all, she still asks Giles to help her figure it out at the very end of B vs. D episode. (Which is why Giles decides to stay in Season 5 and not return to England as originally planned.) It�s also important to note that at the end of Buffy vs. Dracula, Dawn shows up, similar timeline to Tara�s statement: Be Back Before Dawn. Somehow the two are connected. That�s not the end of this theme, �you think you know who you are, what�s to come��, which is explored sporadically through Season 5. In Fool For Love, Buffy consults Spike, the killer of two slayers and as close an expert as she has on slayers and vampires. In a dark take on the Giles/Buffy training study session, Spike instructs Buffy on the relationship between Slayers and Vamps. And at one point he even tells her that she�s asking the wrong questions, just as the First Slayer states towards the end of her dream. �Ask the right questions. You want to know how I beat 'em? The question isn't �How'd I win?�. The question is �Why'd they lose?�� But Buffy is afraid to ask the right questions, she�s afraid of what the slayer is, afraid to let it define her as she believes it defined Faith. (Remember what Faith said in Bad Girls : �Hey, slaying's what we were built for. If you're not enjoying it, you're doing something wrong.� And that was not long before Faith killed a man without remorse. Buffy is terrified of becoming Faith.)

FIRST SLAYER: You're afraid that being the Slayer means losing your humanity.
BUFFY: Does it?
FIRST SLAYER: You are full of love. You love with all of your soul. It's brighter than the fire ... blinding. That's why you pull away from it.
BUFFY: (surprised) I'm full of love? I'm not losing it?
FIRST SLAYER: Only if you reject it. Love is pain, and the Slayer forges strength from pain. Love ... give ... forgive. Risk the pain. It is your nature. It will bring you to your gift.

And what is Buffy�s gift? Death - according to the first slayer and Spike. Again they echo each other: �Death is your art, you make it with your hands day after day �� and the First Slayer: �Death is your gift.� That may be what scares Buffy the most. And it may also be what is causing her to miss the point. Rejecting who she is � rejecting who we are � closes us off to those who love us. Isn�t that what has happened in Season 6? Buffy is rejecting her calling and herself, and as a result she has become closed off from her friends, from emotion, from love. What did she tell her mother all the way back in Fear Itself? �I don�t know. � I�m starting to feel like there is a pattern here. � Open your heart to someone, and he bails on you. Maybe it�s easier to just not let anyone in.�(Season 4 Btvs.) But it�s more than just a fear of abandonment - it�s also self-hatred. Buffy has rejected herself on a deep subconscious level. (�I came back wrong. I am wrong,� she tells Tara in Dead Things. ) If you can�t love and respect yourself, how can you love or respect anyone else? How can you be the slayer? The Hand? End of digression - Back to Buffy�s dream.

In the next segment of the dream she is back at Sunnydale High and she is asking people if they have seen her friends. �Have you seen my friends? They wouldn�t just disappear?� Along the way she passes her mother who is living in the walls of the school. This whole portion of her dream may be a metaphor for the journey between adolescence to adulthood. The part about her mother living behind the wall = rebellion? You block off the parent figure who�s been pestering you, by encasing them behind a wall, leaving a hole big enough for their face to peek through occasionally. I don�t want to deal with you any more, you�re no longer necessary, so I will conveniently block you out. And in a sense that is what Buffy has done to her Mother all along. In the beginning of Restless, before the gang goes to sleep, Joyce mentions how this is the first time she�s met Riley. Buffy has been dating and sleeping with Riley all year long and this is the first time Joyce met him? Her mother lives in the same town. All during high school Buffy has put Mom someplace convenient where she can locate her whenever she wants to. (Hence the fact her mother is behind a wall in Buffy�s high school.) �I�ll always be here for you,� her mother tells her in Normal Again, �you�ll always have me,� she says in Fear Itself. And in a sense that�s true � inside Buffy there�s a place her mother will always reside. (Although I hope it�s the world of the asylum and not the walls of Sunnydale high.) In the dream Buffy eventually leaves her mother and the world of high school to locate her friends, believing them to be in trouble. She does the same thing in Normal Again � she leaves the world of her parents and childhood to be with her friends.

The next segment of the dream � she follows someone who looks like Xander up the stairs. This makes sense, in Season 5 and most of Season 6 � Xander appears to be ahead of her on the road to adulthood. Upstairs is clearly adulthood, or the next stage after high school. When she climbs the stairs, Buffy exits the sunny world of high school to the darker world of Riley and the Initiative, the first stage of her adulthood. The world is no longer black and white with Mommy nearby and the bright sunny halls of high school. The villains are no longer just demons, but possibly the government, possibly even your boyfriend.

RILEY: We're drawing up a plan for world domination. The key element? Coffeemakers that think
BUFFY: World domination? I-is that a good?
RILEY: Baby, we're the government.(He swings around in his chair to strike a James Bond-like pose. The camera shoots him from below, through the glass tabletop. On the table we see a handgun.) It's what we do.

A world where people carry guns and the lines between right and wrong are not so clearly drawn. A world where high school nerds could actually be worse than the demons you fought in high school. Riley strikes a James Bond pose, wears clothes similar to the ones in As You Were and talks about gadgets and his new leadership role in the government. The room goes dark. And the other guy�who had been Adam speaks to Buffy.

OTHER GUY: She's uncomfortable with certain concepts. It's understandable. Aggression is a natural human tendency. Though you and me come by it another way.(Shot of Buffy with the dark- haired creature behind her.)
BUFFY: We're not demons.
OTHER GUY: Is that a fact?

She is uncomfortable with the concept that humans can be aggressive, evil. In high school � it even took her by surprise. As she states in Gingerbread when two kids appear to be killed by a cult (Season 3, Btvs): �Someone with a soul did this?� How can that be? So is it surprising that the idea that she could be related to demons is so shocking to her? Demons = evil, remember? That is the child�s view. It doesn�t help that Riley calls her �killer�. Remember Riley shares a similar black and white view: (New Moon Rising � Season 4 Btvs.)

BUFFY: You sounded like Mr. Initiative. Demons bad, people good.
RILEY: Something wrong with that theorem?

I think this segment of the dream explains perfectly why Buffy and Riley could never work. In it, the sirens go off, Riley and Adam attempt to build a �fort� with pillows to protect themselves and Buffy states she has weapons. When she opens her bag to pull them out � she paints her face with mud instead, the face of the slayer. The demon?

RILEY: Thought you were looking for your friends. Okay, killer...if that's the way you want it. I guess you're on your own.

This action is repeated in Dracula and Into the Woods� he accuses her of transferring her interest in Angel to Dracula, in Into the Woods � he accuses her of shutting him out, not caring about him. He never once calls her �killer� except in her dream. But I think that�s what she hears when he talks to her, that�s what she fears he is thinking. It�s not really his fault that he can�t grasp her struggle. As Adam puts it, Riley comes by the aggression differently and has never really understood the mystical world. He still separates things into logical black and white boxes like a solider.

Before we leave Riley, I�d like to address the metaphor of Riley and Adam sitting at opposite sides of the table. And of course the gun. The gun is easy � it represents human aggression, which is just as deadly and horrible as demon aggression, as the Scooby gang is about to discover. Up until Season 6, Btvs has purposefully tried to avoid guns. Only Angel really had them. Why? As Jane Espenson pointed out in her discussion of Angel � Btvs took place in the adolescent world of high school, guns really have little or no place there.(Rahael�s post on Ats DVD). In Buffy�s dream, we see the gun clearly displayed right after the comment about how they plan to achieve world domination. The means aren�t really important, just the aggressive, take no prisoners desire behind it. Adam and Riley � the monster and the man? Or are they both? Adam also symbolizes the first man � when she asks what his name was � he replies, before Adam not a man amongst us can tell. I wonder if Buffy�s lineage dates back before Adam? The demons clearly do. At any rate, Riley leaves and Buffy continues on her journey alone. (Once again we only have Riley � no Spike. Which makes me wonder if they�ve combined the two? Possibly Adam = Spike? At any rate Riley/Spike leave and Buffy moves on alone.)

Finally Buffy reaches the desert and is disappointed not to see her friends, for she still believes this is the whole point of her journey, to locate her friends. Instead Tara reappears along with the first slayer. Tara speaks for the first slayer in the dream.

BUFFY: Why do you follow me?(The woman shakes her head.)
TARA: (offscreen) I don't.
BUFFY: Where are my friends?(Shot of the woman backing away from Buffy, still crouching down low.)
TARA: (offscreen) You're asking the wrong questions.

Tara keeps trying to tell her that it�s not about her friends. But Buffy can�t hear her. Finally Tara tells her what it is about, who Buffy is, who the slayer is: �I have no speech. No name. I live in the action of death, the blood cry, the penetrating wound. I am destruction. Absolute ... alone.� I am the Hands. I am a part of you that you cannot quench. The part that you cannot, should not share with your friends.

(Shot of Buffy's hand, holding a bunch of Tarot-shaped cards. In the one on top we see a scene of Giles, Buffy, Willow, and Xander in Joyce's living room watching TV)
BUFFY: I am not alone
TARA: The Slayer does not walk in this world.
BUFFY: I walk. I talk. I shop, I sneeze. I'm gonna be a fireman when the floods roll back. There's trees in the desert since you moved out. Now give me back my friends.
FIRST SLAYER: No ... friends! Just the kill. We ... are ... alone!
(The bald guy leans in between Buffy and the First Slayer, holding up two slices of cheese. He grins and shakes the cheese at Buffy, then retreats offscreen.)
BUFFY: That's it. I'm waking up.

Wow � denial much? Buffy isn�t listening. Are we? The first slayer is trying to tell Buffy that when it comes to slaying � they are alone. When it comes to the vocation � it is theirs alone. The first slayer incorporates mind, heart, soul and hands. Buffy was strongest in Primeval when all four joined inside her. Just as she was strongest against Glory in the Gift when all four joined inside her. The difference? In the Gift, she did it alone, on that tower with Dawn. The four elements were clearly there � she did not require her friends to provide them. Her moral spirit outshone Willow�s, her heart outshone Xander�s, her mind outshone Giles�. She did it alone with the hammer with Glory. She made the decision to include Spike, to forgive him and treat him as a man even though he had tried to kill her repeatedly in the past, knowing he understood and would protect Dawn with his life if necessary. (In that way her heart and spirit outshone her friends.) She made the decision against the advice of her friends. At the end of Season 5, Buffy moved past them on to another plane. In Season 6, Bargaining Part I & II, they brought her back down to theirs. Out of time. Out of place. Back to their world. And somehow she�s lost what she is, what the slayer is. She�s lost the use of her hands. Rejected them as wrong, just as she rejects herself over and over again this year. Just as she rejects the hands over and over again in her dream. The cheese man tries to give her two pieces of cheese held in his right and left hands � and she says � �I�m waking up now.� (The second time in her dream that she�s rejected the hands.) Her hands are the source of her power, a power that can unite, exact justice, slay evil and heal. Instead she pummels the wrong people and does the wrong tasks � whether that is beating up Spike or churning the double meat. The Slayer tells her that her friends can�t be in on the kill. She tells Buffy�s friends the same thing. If they continue to follow her � they will do so at the peril of their own hearts, spirits and heads. Instead of listening to the slayer, Buffy screams for her friends. Demands they continue to act together. She rejects what she learned when she leapt from the Tower at the end of Season 5 and in doing so, has rejected the power of her hands. Hence all the images of chopped off hands this year.

The final image in Buffy�s dream is Buffy on the floor, once again ignoring and rejecting the first slayer. The Slayer is trying to tell Buffy what she is. But Buffy pushes it aside, returning to her friends on the couch, and effectively breaking the slayer�s spell over them all. Everything seems fine again. Or so we think. But is it? Now awake, Buffy goes upstairs and visits her Mom�s den and looks at the naked mattress. In the voice over, we hear Tara say: �you think you know what you are�what�s to come�you haven�t even begun.� The first slayer is reiterating her warning.

Buffy needs to deal with who and what she is. To let go of the old childhood dreams. To embrace the slayer. To take up her arms and move onto the next stage, even if that means leaving Xander and Willow behind. (Giles already left.) Sometimes when we grow up � we have to change the nature of our old high school or childhood relationships, and if we can�t? Move on without them. The next stage of our journey sometimes has to be alone.

Thanks for reading. Looking forward to your comments as always!

(FYI: The other dreams are now available on my web site along with my recent comparison of Riley/Spike.

http://www.geocities.com/shadowkatbtvs/index.html

Buffy�s dream will be on it after it�s off the boards.)

;- ) shadowkat

[> Re: Restless: Buffy's Dream- Rejecting the Hands (Long!! Spoilers to Normal Again only) -- MaeveRigan, 08:41:57 04/26/02 Fri

Best analysis of Buffy's dream in "Restless" I've seen yet, and finally, an explanation that fits for the mysterious severed hands of B6. If anyone has suggested this before, elsewhere, I haven't seen it.

Thanks!

[> Very well done. -- Caroline, 11:20:45 04/26/02 Fri

[> Fabulous! -- ponygirl, 12:33:54 04/26/02 Fri

I really liked your connection of Buffy's dream to The Gift and s6, especially the idea that Buffy in The Gift had fully integrated and moved beyond her friends.

BTW can someone remind me of the other chopped off hands this year? I remember the 'bot getting her arms ripped off in Bargaining 2, are there other examples?

Once again, great essay 'kat!

[> chopped off hands? -- Liz, 15:21:01 04/26/02 Fri

Can anyone list the images of chopped off hands this season? I can fully believe that there have been some and I just never noticed them as such, but right now I can't think of any.

[> [> Re: chopped off hands? -- ravenhair, 16:15:53 04/26/02 Fri

In addition to the mummy hand (Life Serial) and the Buffybot being quartered, there was the finger Buffy found in the grinder during the episode Double Meat Palace.

Any others?

[> [> [> Re: chopped off hands? -- Sulis, 19:04:28 04/26/02 Fri

The stray arm lying next to Spike in Warren's lair when Warren is checking his chip (Smashed).

I remember there being one in Tabula Rasa too, but can't remember when or where.

[> [> [> [> Re: chopped off hands? -- vandalia, 20:53:13 04/26/02 Fri

The one in Tabula Rasa was at the very end, when Buffy is sitting at the counter distraught and dismisses Spike with a glance. As he storms away, if you look at the counter, under of those glass cake plate things on the counter is a rubbery-looking fake hand.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: chopped off hands? -- shadowkat, 06:09:04 04/27/02 Sat

Other hand images:

Smashed - Jonathan's hand is injured by Freezing the guard

Wrecked - Rack uses his hand to explore Willow and Willow's
power exudes from her hands. Also Dawn breaks her arm.
Which is later seen in a cast in Gone.

Dead Things - Jonathan injures his hand again while making cereberal dampener and Spike pushes his hand through
the demon.

Of course I could be reaching on those..

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: chopped off hands? -- ponygirl, 08:34:51 04/27/02 Sat

Yes! Now I'm seeing all this hand imagery you were mentioning, and Buffy's pose for most of Normal Again is her one hand clutching at her neck - the hand is open, passive, trying to protect herself. The same hand she finally clenches into a fist to kill the demon and assert her choice of reality. Such a great essay shadowcat!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: chopped off hands?...and let us not forget... -- redcat, 10:40:23 04/27/02 Sat

... the at-the-door-of-the-crypt scene in Dead Things. Buffy approaches Spike's crypt as Bush's Gavin Rossdale sings the lyrics from "Out of this World": "When we die we go into the arms of those that (sic) remember us." Buffy reaches her right Hand up to touch the door. From inside the crypt, Spike initially places his left hand (like the actor who plays him, Spike appears to be left-handed [aha! another indication of Spike as Buffy's shadow self...]) on the door as if he were touching Buffy's crotch. Then in a tender moment of emotion beyond lust, he moves his left hand up the door to "meet" his lover's right hand. Their near-touch through the door may signal Buffy's struggle, her resistance coupled with her intense attraction, to see herself (and Spike, for that matter) as capable of using such a powerful Hand for making more than just death. I'm not sure the crypt door between their hands functions in exactly the same way as the chopped-off-hand metaphor does, but given ME's propensity to play with embodied metaphors, I think it's at least worth considering.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oooh I like that one -- shadowkat, 21:45:59 04/27/02 Sat

That works perfectly with my Eros/Psyche metaphor and
my shadow selves idea.

I agree. He reiterates his ability to sense her - when he approaches her in the woods fighting the demons. She senses
him on visceral level (b/c he's a vampire and she's the slayer - she sensed Angel too - remember in Pangs) and
he senses her for the same reasons. The relationship is an interesting one - love/hate, dark/light, masculine/feminine.
Most interesting relationship dynamic I've ever seen.

Also it is interesting that the chopped off hands can relate to him as well as her. He finds the Buffbot
after she does. TR hand is next to his. Smashed arm is next
to his head in Jonathan's lab. His checks Dawn's arm.
Xander is injured in the arm in OAFA, even though Spike first tries to prevent it.

They are definitely bracing the two characters against each other. Using him to explore another side of her, and vice versa.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cool. Here's another... -- redcat, 09:20:13 04/28/02 Sun

In terms of the continued foreshadowing of both the hero's issues with her hands/power and the relationship between her and her shadow-self through the (literally) embodied metaphor of hands, think back to The Spiral. As one of the Knights of Byzantium thrusts a sword down through the roof of the RV, it is Spike who catches it -- with his bare hands -- while telling B, with typical sarcasm, "Now might be a good time for something heroic." Moments later, it is Dawn, for whom B must choose to engage her hero's hands, who tends to S's wounds, telling him to "keep the pressure on." His reply, of course ("I always do...") always struck me as somehow prophetic for his later relationship with the Buffster.

Shadowkat, et al, would love to hear any further takes re: your thinking about the hero's hands and her shadow.
BTW, if a hero makes shadow figures in the candlelight with her hands, what mythopoetic figures will she make???

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> one more hand clap -- ponygirl, 10:30:09 04/28/02 Sun

And just remembered Xander's line in Normal Again -- when being attacked by the demon he yells "Buffy I need my hands". Which is an odd thing to say when it was Buffy who tied his hands in the first place. But in the context of shadowcat's essay is works perfectly. Major coolness.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: one more hand clap -- shadowkat, 12:49:54 04/28/02 Sun

Came up with a few more today:

Spike hurts his hand on the cross in Bargaining and is
the one who finds the Buffbot's lost arm. He holds it up when Dawn goes missing.

Last season in 5: Dawn mutilates her arms and hands in Bloodties. Buffy dips her hand in her blood and pushs it against Dawn injured bloody hand.

Glory mindsucks Tara and others with her hands - inserting them into everyone's brains.

Willow gets Tara's brains back with her hands in The Gift.

Giles kills Ben with his hands.

On shadowself - most of the obvious hand references this year have something to do with Spike (ie chopped maniken hands or false hands not connected to someone.) I'm getting the feeling that he has tried to be her hands and it's not
working. He tried to be the hand over the summer. Instead they are just chopped off. Because he is the left or open
one?

There's a poem anom quoted a while back in a thread from
Ursual Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness:

"Light is the left hand of darkness
and darkness the right hand of light.
Two are one, life and death, lying
together like lovers in kemmer,
like hands joined together,
like the end and the way."

I think this describes the relationship going on with S/B.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ...I don't usually use the word delicious... -- redcat, 13:18:59 04/28/02 Sun

[> [> [> Re: chopped off hands? -- JBone, 18:34:43 04/27/02 Sat

If you go back to last year, you have Olaf the troll breaking Xanders wrist/hand, and Xander blooding his fist through the wall in "The Body"

[> [> [> [> Re: chopped off hands? -- shadowkat, 21:49:44 04/27/02 Sat

You just reminded me of Spike burning his hand on the cross
in Bargaining Part II - which I always found odd.

Not sure if last years count as much, because she seemed
together then. But I could be wrong...

[> [> Re: chopped off hands? (All the Way) -- Akita, 09:40:41 04/27/02 Sat

In All the Way, as Buffy descends the stairs into the basement, there's a hand in the shot (under the staircase, IIRC). Also she mentions the mummy hand to Spike (whom she finds in the basement).

Spike is associated in some way with several of the hand images in B6.

Akita

[> [> [> Re: chopped off hands? (All the Way) -- ravenhair, 14:25:38 04/27/02 Sat

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but Spike punches the wall of his crypt in After Life, injuring his hand. When Buffy visits him, they take notice of each others bloody hands.

[> [> [> [> Re: chopped off hands? (All the Way) -- dream of the consortium, 06:19:27 04/29/02 Mon

I was thinking of Spike inspecting Buffy's hands at the house after she claws her way out of the crypt. He identifies with her - knew that her hands would be bloodied because he did it himself.

[> [> Re: chopped off hands? -- Lyonors, 19:25:59 04/29/02 Mon

NA--Buffy reaches up from under the stairs to trip Tara...If I had actually had some sleep this weekend, I might try to go further with this little tidbit. But as it is, Im just trying to stay awake to watch my Angel tapes for the last three weeks!

Ly

[> The four elements (small spoiler for Entropy) -- ravenhair, 16:12:15 04/26/02 Fri

Well done, shadowkat! Lots of food for thought.

I have also noticed this season the incorporation of the 4 elements: earth, water, fire, and wood. Metal can be considered a 5th element.

Buffy represents all the elements, the perfect balance, and is seen utilizing each, starting with Bargaining. She injures her hands digging out of her grave (earth); Her basement is flooded (water) in the episode by the same name and needs new copper pipes(metal) to repair the damage; wood is used as a weapon of course; the fire freezes her as she sings in OMWF.

Spike represents fire: He uses fire as a weapon in Bargaining; as Buffy sings the opening lines of Walk Through the Fire, a couple dance passionately in the background symbolizing B/S; Buffy holds onto Spike's lighter as a keepsake. Those belonging to the fire element are emotionally impulsive, yet have magnetic personalities and are fiercely loyal to the ones they love.

Xander as carpenter, represents wood: he's frustrated over the destruction of Buffy's coffee table in Flooded; and he builds Buffy a hope/weapons chest for her birthday. Those belonging to the wood understand the value of friendship but can be too set in their ways.

Anya represents metal: she's more enthusiastic about her engagement than her fiance; Anya treats her ring as precious, looking fondly at it in OMWF (I'll Never Tell) and stresses over losing it in Tabula Rasa; she returns to her vengeance ways in the upcoming Entropy episode, wearing her new pendant. Members of the metal element display confidence & self-reliance (Anya as manager of the Magic Box) and love the trappings of luxury and comfort.

Air is presented through relationship of Anya and Xander. Halfrek and D'Hoffryn point out that Xander has domesticated her, stifled her independence; she hyperventilates under stress during Older and Far Away.
Xander literally suffocates after announcing their engagement: "Sweet mother oxygen!"

Giles and/or Tara represents Earth. Those who belong to the Earth element are considered wise and disciplined, conservative in nature. Since the departure of Giles, Tara has successfully filled this role.

Willow represents the element of water. She goes into the woods to sacrifice a deer, using its blood (which mostly consists of water) to resurrect Buffy; she's rarely seen without a water bottle in hand after Wrecked. Those who belong to the water element inspire loyalty. Buffy confirms this: "Once you fall for Willow, you stay fallen."

[> [> Eastern or western elements? -- Vickie, 16:45:26 04/26/02 Fri

I wonder if you intend to use the eastern elements (earth, fire, water, wood, and possibly metal) or the western (earth, air, fire, and water)? Mostly, your character descriptions seem to use the easter, and rather well.

Either way, what I most notice about Buffy is how she is NOT in balance regarding the elements. The fire freezes her. Her basement is flooded. She must escape the earth. Each of these is a way in which she is in opposition to the element, rather than in harmony with it.

Which is probably just another way to say that Buffy's time is out of joint, and she needs to set it right.

[> [> [> Re: Eastern or western elements? -- ravenhair, 16:58:06 04/26/02 Fri

Eastern, but I included air because it was brought up in shadowkat's essay.

Yes, I agree that Buffy is in opposition with the elements.

I've drawn a parallel to every character, except Dawn, which really bugs me. Any theories out there?

[> [> [> [> Re: Eastern or western elements? -- shadowkat, 19:01:17 04/26/02 Fri

I think ether is the same as air? right? (shrug).

Dawn = air to me. She is constantly screaming. She floats.
In the house in OAFA- the rage feels a little like trapped air. She's at times like a whirlwind. Air also dissapaits
fire - which may be why she and Spike work well together.
Water puts it out, calms. Metal gets broiled by it. wood
burned by it. (Look at how each character interacts with
the others and I think your metaphors work very well.)

Great post. Thanks for that. And oh - I think it is eastern, yogis tend to be eastern oriented, right?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Eastern or western elements? -- O'Cailleagh, 02:34:03 04/27/02 Sat

Ether is Spirit, the fifth Western element. And it can be tricky combining the Eastern and Western elemental systems as they don't equate exactly (eg, Air equates to both Metal and Wood). Dawn also seems like she would be Air as Air is symbolic of youth. It is also connected withe the East and the Dawn.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Chinese 5 element theory and BtVS -- Caroline, 18:32:08 04/28/02 Sun

Just a clarification of 5 element theory in Chinese philoshophy. The elements are fire, earth, metal or air, water and wood. They are always pictured in a circle in what is called the generation cycle - fire creates earth, which creates metal etc. There is also a destruction or control cycle where fire controls metal, which controls wood, which controls earth, which controls water, which controls earth.

All energy or chi (prana, ki etc) is associated with the bodily organs and functions through a system of pathways called meridians. Everything in the material world is also categorized here, including food, seasons, time of day, emotions, movement, you name it. And each element has a masculine and feminine side (yin and yang).

Imbalances in one's personal energy system can be diagnosed through touch of the abdomen (hara diagnosis), pulse diagnosis or just by looking at a person's body and listening to their voice. (Next time you see someone with bags under their eyes, you know they need to eat less salt. People with red noses need to drink less.)

The correspondances that people have come up with between the 5 elements and the characters on Buffy are very interesting but, as 5 element theory tells us, energy is always moving and changing. If blocked in one place it will find another avenue to flow through. And not just that - there is both a negative and positive manifestation of each characteristic of each element. For example, people who are strongly wood may be decisive and visionary but they can also be stubborn and impatient.

Each character may have a dominant strength as epitomized by a certain element, but that keeps changing. For example, Xander may be a good example of wood element, but in Hell's Bell's he was showing lots of water - his fear of marriage, his feelings of insecurity about himself definitely correspond to water.

Tara is a great example of earth - nourishing, maternal, containing. But she showed some great moments of behaviour more associated with wood element - decisive, controlled and patient in her relationship with Willow. And Tara can definitely contain Willow (water).

Buffy has been all over the spectrum - out of touch with every element, but that makes really good sense because all 5 elements are actually the underpinnings of life and she doesn't really want to be alive. But in previous seasons, Buffy has been mainly wood - strong, decisive, impatient, action- oriented.

Giles, IMO, is actually a metal element person - intellectual, absentinded, having some difficulty relating to his environment, very focussed on detail. He's not nurturing in the same earth way that Tara is. But he has also shown elements of water - a deep, dark hidden side. And Giles can certainly control Xander (wood).

Anya is fire - she is out-going, says what she thinks. I think we can see this in her courtship of Xander, her unabashed love of money, her embrace of her role at the magic shop, and the gradual opening of her heart centre (heart is associated with the fire element) as she learns the almost infinite variability of feeling, tone and layers in that emotion after she becomes human. And Anya sure can infuriate Giles (metal) - remember Tabula Rasa?

Spike has also been all over the spectrum. I think he has very strong elements of fire - love's bitch, love isn't brains, it's blood, etc, but he is also wood - impatient, impulsive, and he's also water - fearful yet persistent.

Willow is water - we can see this in her insecuirty about her deepest self that we don't see every day. In all the dream episodes we've had, Willow is always frightened that people will find out who she really is - classic negative manifestation of water element. Her positive expression of it is in her drive. Water is the basis of all life, the Chinese believe that the kidney (associated with the water element) is where jing is stored - jing is one's ancestral or hereditary energy or chi. It can bestow drive, persistence and longevity. (Look at people's ears to get an idea of their jing - big ears means long life - that's why the Buddhas are always depicted with huge ears). And Willow sure can dampen Anya's fire.

I'm not sure where Dawn would slot in. In many ways she is young and unformed. The major emotions we see from her are fear and grief, so that would make her a mixture of water and metal. But her essence as the key may provide some hints that in the future, she will develop more rounded characteristics typical of the entire 5 elements.

[> [> [> B disappeared into thin Air too- -- Spike Lover, 18:12:47 04/26/02 Fri

[> Excellent. -- Annie, 20:50:54 04/26/02 Fri

Great explanation of the abundance of hands imagery this year. I also thought I'd mention that the beginning of Buffy's dream was originally intended differently. In the first draft, Willow was the one waking Buffy up.

WILLOW (O.S.)
(fierce whisper)
Buffy, wake up!

INT. BUFFY AND WILLOW'S DORM ROOM - MORNING

Buffy wakes up in her dorm bed, looking over at:

ANGLE: WILLOW across the room in hers.

WILLOW
Buffy, you gotta wake up! Right away!

BUFFY
Willow, I can't. You know that.

WILLOW
You don't understand...

BUFFY
I do. If I wake up now, you guys don't have a--

The Primitive LEAPS onto her bed, shrieking incoherently, and grabs her.

(Courtesy of Psyche)

Considering the course of events in S6, this non-scene is intriguing.

Thanks again, shadowkat! Whale of a job!

[> [> Re: Excellent. -- shadowkat, 06:11:35 04/27/02 Sat

Thanks for that - that non-scene is intriguing.
Hmmm. I understand why they changed it, but wonder
if they were thinking of it when they did Bargaining??

[> [> [> More Hand Imagery (OMWF) -- Yoda, 10:47:57 04/29/02 Mon

Great post Shadowcat. I don't know if it is signicant but in OMWF in the "Where do we go from here" song where everyone clasps hands, it appears that only Buffy & Spike intertwine fingers.

(Courtersy of Psyche)

DAWN:
Where do we go ... from here? [walks to the steps and down]
BUFFY/SPIKE:
Where do we go ... from here?
GILES:
The battle's done
And we kind of won
GILES/TARA:
So we sound our victory cheer
Where do we go from here?
ANYA/XANDER:
Why is the path unclear
When we know home is near?

They all move to stand in a line side-by-side.

ALL:
Understand we'll go hand in hand [all join hands]
But we'll walk alone in fear. [all release hands and walk off in different directions]

[> Re: Restless: Buffy's Dream- Rejecting the Hands (Long!! Spoilers to Normal Again only) -- Etrangere, 11:48:19 04/29/02 Mon

Four great essays. Very good synthesis of the Restless interpreations and foreshadowing so far.

I was particulary impressed with the wardrobe / closet image that you undercovered in the three dreams (but not in Buffy's ?) that's an interresting take I might use later :)

I do not really agree with the way you interprete de Hand image in S6, as I think her Hand is hurt as a result of her resurection, (because she had to dig out of her own tomb) and is the reason she's cut out from her friends (Hand as standing for the links to others). But anyway I've already said that in the essay I had linked to you previously :)
But yours is an interresting take, and I like the healing / slaying aspect, and the idea of incorporating the four power in Buffy. There's a lot of though provoking stuff there.

So, amazing, as usual :)

[> [> Re: Restless: Buffy's Dream- Rejecting the Hands (Long!! Spoilers to Normal Again only) -- shadowkat, 05:47:21 04/30/02 Tue

Yes it is interesting that there really doesn't appear to be curtains or closets or wardrobes per se in Buffy's dream.
Not sure why that is. Is it because, all four dreams
are Buffy's and the other three Scoobes are trespassing on slayer territory in some way and the wardrobe is their
way out? (shrug)

On the hand thing - I think part of the reason she rejects
her hands this season is because she had to claw out of her coffin and hurt them. Clawing out cut them off from her.
And I think - Spike - who went through the same thing, sort
of understands this and has been trying to help. But he can't because he doesn't have a compass?

I read your take by the way - both your essay on Restless, excellent, and the Wrecked one in the link you provided.
Also very good. Both gave me ideas. Thanks! ;-)

Does anybody watch Hollywood Squares? -- Darby, 09:19:06 04/26/02 Fri

ASH is supposed to be on this week, but I just ran across the info and don't watch the show.

But I assume that it's shot (sometime in the past) in LA, which means he must have been in town to do it. If some intrepid detective knew the shooting schedules of the 2 shows, we might be able to infer how many of the BtVS closing eps he was around for. Or not. Or this is WAY too obsessy. But at least people could watch him today if they're so inclined...

I've gotten averse to spoilers, but I already knew he's going to be back this season, and wouldn't mind knowing if he is going to be in multiple eps.

[> Re: Does anybody watch Hollywood Squares? -- Robert, 10:17:41 04/26/02 Fri

>> "ASH is supposed to be on this week ..."

Yes, he's on this week. I don't know their shooting schedule, but it seems to run 2 or 3 months in advance of the showings.

[> Re: Does anybody watch Hollywood Squares? Surely don't! -- Sloan Parker, 10:40:30 04/26/02 Fri

I do not watch Hollywood Square since I think the game is not funny and most of all I do not like Whoopi Goldberg! I remember that one time, at band camp, where a friend of mine press me into watching two Whoopi movies. Well let's say I lost 3 hours of my precious little time and she's not going to give them back!
I think that if ASH was on the game it means he was around enough to find time to appear on it, which means he probably shooted more than one episode, which means I'll be really happy, which means my boyfriend's gonna be lucky tonight. :-)
Peace, Sloan

X

[> [> ASH is on H sq this week, and is quite charming. -- Brian, 10:52:20 04/26/02 Fri

[> Somewhat spoilery for rest of season 6 above -- Masq, 11:35:52 04/26/02 Fri

Buffy Bibliography -- Derik, 11:19:20 04/26/02 Fri

Hello.

I have been collating a bibliography of articles/essays discussing Buffy (and Angel) in a critical/academic context. It is located at:

http://astro.temple.edu/~dbadman/buffbib. html

A few entries are from people at this board (essays I found in the 'Fictionary Corner'), if you are on there and would like to be attributed differently, send me a message. (Of the top of my head: mundusmundi, rob, rowan, rattletrap.)

Any comments/suggestions are most welcome.

[> Ficionary Corner essay contributors read above! -- Masq, 11:37:07 04/26/02 Fri

[> Re: Buffy Bibliography -- Maeve Rigan, 11:41:53 04/26/02 Fri

Wow! What a helpful resource!

There once was a link to the Garrett Epps essay from Slayage, I thought. No longer there? Hm. Could have sworn I saw it online somewhere...

Two unrelated Anya thoughts (long; spoilers for Hell's Bells) -- tim, 13:29:53 04/26/02 Fri

Never being one to be able to keep my mouth shut, I feel compelled to add my two cents on a couple of matters after lurking for only a few days. I apologize if this means I'm tilling old fields--I'm still fairly new to the whole Buffy-obsession thing, so even the old questions are still new to me. (This would be a good time to mention how great I think this board is; it's much better than UPN's official one. Kudos to Masq and to everyone contributing.)

1) Since I began perusing this board, I've noticed quite a bit of discussion about Anya's relative good- or evilness in relation to her days as a vengeance demon, her level of remorse, et cetera, et cetera. I can only assume that this is a recurring point of discussion. I see a potentially mitigating circumstance in her demonic behavior that no one has mentioned while I've been watching, and I think it bears notice. Note that I'm not trying to excuse anything she might have done, nor am I necessarily endorsing this view; I just think the argument can be made, and would love to see any comments people have on it.

We need to remember that Anya was not a vampire, living day in and day out in the human world. She's not even a demon in the vein of the old couple in "Double or Nothing," living 300 years in the LA sewer system. (This would be before LA had sewers, but let's not get distracted.) She is an immortal demon who spends all of her "off-duty" time in an alternate dimension, hanging out with other immortal demon pals (d'Hoffryn, Halfrek, etc.)

Think about that (admittedly obvious) fact in light of what she says in "The Body": "...there's just a body and I can't understand why she can't get back in it...." Perhaps I'm building too much out of this one line, but it seems to me that it means Anya, Halfrek, and the rest have forgotten what being mortal means. After a thousand years of living among immortals, they've come to think of pain and death as temporary. And disemboweling an unfaithful husband isn't nearly as odious a task if you've convinced yourself that sure, he'll die for a little while, but then he'll be able to "get back in it"--and he'll have learned his lesson in the meantime. This also explains the apparent disregard vengeance demons have for their clientele; again, what's a little death if it means she gets to teach the (expletive deleted) a lesson?

Incidentally, this works (for me, anyway) on a metaphorical level as well. As a comment on how blinding to true suffering a feeling of vengeance can be, and how they often rebound on the vengeance-seeker in entirely unpredictable ways, it's subtle, succinct, and powerful.

On an unrelated note: I'm sure I'm not the first person to notice this, but I'd love the "Cliff's Notes" summary of the discussion--how was it that there was still a demon around to come back and (figuratively) bite Anya in the butt at her wedding? We're told very specifically in "The Gift" that destroying her power center will break EVERY wish she's ever granted. That should mean, then, that the old man was transformed back into himself when Giles broke the necklace. The best I can come up with is that being in another dimension "protected" him from the effects of the power center's destruction. (Pretty weak, I know.) Or perhaps this will be dealt with in "Entropy." I've not so much as seen the trailer, being about as anti-spoiler as they come, but I've been told that Anya plays a prominent role. Ideas?

--th

[> Nice first post -- Vickie, 15:21:14 04/26/02 Fri

And welcome!

I like your point about the effects of the vengeance mindset. Metaphorical "blindness" appears to be a recurring theme in the Jossverse.

In The Wish, Giles does state that breaking the power center will undo everything Anyanka has done. However, he seems to have been wrong. For whatever reason, only Cordelia's wish seems to have been negated. The others (the trollizing of Olaf, the Chicago demon) still suffer their fates.

[> Welcome to the Board. Interesting thought about Anya (spoilers to Hells Bells). -- Sophist, 17:08:36 04/26/02 Fri

But I don't think your suggestion gives Anya a real excuse.

Suppose that a career criminal offered this as an excuse, that he had been a criminal for so long that he had forgotten what it was like to suffer as the victim of a crime. Would we diminish his moral blame for this reason? Or would we instead think that the lack of sympathy demonstrated a sociopathic personality?

In addition, Anyanka seemed to relish the evil. In The Wish, she told Giles that she "had no idea this new world would be so exciting". She is making a clear distinction here and expressing a preference for the evil. This, and other comments she has made since she lost her power, indicate that she fully understood the pain she inflicted. What she didn't seem to understand, until Hell's Bells, was how to put herself in the shoes of her victims.

It's interesting, but we've never been told exactly what Anya was before her vengeance demon gig. We've all assumed she was human, but nowhere does it actually say so. If she wasn't, that would explain her otherwise slow transition to humanity. Halfrek, OTOH, was apparently Cecily, a human less than 150 years ago. She could hardly have forgotten that death is inherent in the human condition. And her comments about Dawn in OAFA, as well as her apparent motive for becoming a vengeance demon, suggest that she fully remembers and understands human psychology. I can't let her off the hook either.

[> [> My thoughts on Anya -- Marrec, 20:37:08 04/26/02 Fri

I feel about the same as Sophist, Anya as a Vengance demon didn't forget what it felt like to be a human. One of the more obvious reasons was her friendship with Halfrek. But I don't think she is particularly inclined towards evil, as you say because of her interest in the "Dopplegangland" where every thing is very bad because of Queen C's wish.

(Episode: 'The Wish', not to be confused with the Episode 'Dopplegangland' where Vampy Willow adds even more watchable sexiness to Season Three)

I fell Anya was interested in the alternate world because she feels proud when one of her wishes does something particularly chaotic. Which would explain her breathy rememberances of past wishes and obsession with American economy. The line from the body can be explain by her shock at Joyce passing away. Miss Summers was such a strong and stable character, that it would seem impossible for her to let a little thing like death stop her. Anya, in her characteristic logic, felt that Joyce could just 'undo' death itself and continue being her strong self.

On the subject of Anya's love for Chaos, the newest Episode is called 'Entropy' and is suposed to be - very- Anya centric. That mean anything to you observant veiwers out there? Maybe I'm grasping at straws, but without giving away any spoilers, I have to say that it sounds as if this new episode will back up my whispy theory.

And speaking of Anya's power center, when Giles destroyed it in 'The Wish' he said that it would undo -everything- that she had done. Includes all wishes. But the only two representations of Anya's vengance demon days are the Troll guy, and the Chicago Demon. Which were both banished to alternate universes one way or another. They remained in they're post-wish states, maybe because of this? Also, in 'Dopplegangland' when Anya and Willow accidentally summon Vampy Willow from the wish universe. Shouldn't this universe been completely wiped out of existance because of the destruction of the power center? The running theory says no, because it is just that, an alternate universe. And therefore uneffected by the destruction of the power center. Queen C's wish simply made our Buffyverse as we know it appear very similar to that hell universe. Just my little thought.

(By the way, I myself am a lurker on this board, and need to say that this is the finest BtVS/AtS disscusion board on the net.)

[> [> [> Re: My thoughts on Anya (still spoilery) -- snuffynelson, 01:22:07 04/27/02 Sat

Couple of possible theories are bouncing around my head here.

1. In the Wish, Anyanka put her amulet on Cordelia before she made her wish. I can't imagine a demon feeling comfortable completely losing track of her "power center" in this manner unless it's not as big of a deal as Giles' research suggested. Perhaps a power center is wish-specific. In other words, when Anyanka finishes a "job," she heads back to her demon dimension and either gets her amulet "recharged" or just gets a brand new amulet. Thus, if it gets destroyed, only the _current_ wish or two gets offed. (This could also explain why Halfrek's amulet looks different than Anyanka's)

2. What if the way the wishing works is not to change the current universe, but to transport the wisher to a _pre-existing_ universe where the conditions of the wish are already in place. This would tie in nicely w/ the chaos theory arguments being suggested by the title "Entropy." If an infinite number of parallel universes exist, there will be one where Buffy was sent to Cleveland instead of Sunnydale.

Upon making her wish, Cordy was transported to this parallel reality (PR). (In fact, I wonder if a Cordelia exchange took place. I would have loved to see what was happening in _our_ Sunnydale when a battleworn jaded PR-Cordelia appeared in the midst of a calm school day.) Upon destruction of the power center, the _wish_ was negated, but the parallel universe continues as ever--so vamp- Willow still exists.

_However_, (goodness, this is complicated) since Cordelia was returned to the exact point where she left in _our_ universe, I would argue that the events of "the Wish" shouldn't have happened in the PR either. Since in "Dopplegangland", vamp-Willow is still in the midst of a Buffy-instigated fracas (and Buffy only showed up because Giles was prompted to get her by...Cordelia), everything goes to heck.

Alas--it's early and I'm ready to shift to a bed-dimension.

[> [> [> [> Re: My thoughts on Anya -- Liam, 03:55:32 04/27/02 Sat

Your post was a very interesting one, Tim. I have two problems with Anya. The first, which I and others have discussed, is not just her lack of remorse, but her nostalgia for the torment she caused as a vengeance demon. This is why I _loved_ what happened to her in 'Hell's' Bells', which was, in my opinion, poetic justice.

The second problem is the very bad way she has been written overall. Once she became mortal, she seems to have lost her brain, having the hots for...Xander Harris, someone who cheated on Cordy with Willow. Did she not even sit back and find out what she wanted first, before getting involved with someone male? After all, she has been wreaking vengeance against unfaithful men for centuries, and would have had, one would think, some dislike of the male gender.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: My thoughts on Anya -- Liana, 07:53:14 04/27/02 Sat

I thought the reason why Troll guy didn't change back was because that was a spell that Anya did as a human. That was the spell that got D'Hoffryn interested in her as a Vengance Demon, as Something Blue got his interest in Willow. But the Chicago Demon is something totally different. Perhaps Halfrek playing with Anyanka? I believe there is some competetiveness between them because of D'Hoffryn's comment to Halfrek at the wedding about caring about his demons "equally". Also Halfreks willingness to trap Anya in the Summers house for eternity.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Troll Guy -- Marrec, 23:30:01 04/28/02 Sun

Indeed, the Troll guy was made when Anya was a human. That explains Olaf... I guess we just have to assume that Giles, as horrid as it may seem, was wrong. Which opens up whole new and scary worlds of trouble for the Scooby Gang if Giles ever decides to lend his knowledge again... -_-

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Troll Guy -- LittleBit, 06:38:29 04/29/02 Mon

Don't worry about Giles - it was WishVerse Giles who may have been wrong. Given the differences of the WV, not only may that Giles be not-Research-Guy, the books may also be suspect.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wishverse Giles -- tim, 13:35:25 04/29/02 Mon

I'm sorry; while I'm intrigued by the idea, I'm not getting how it's viable. How does Cordelia's wish that Buffy never came to Sunnydale at all affect Giles' research ability or his books? As I understand the argument it is either that:

1) Giles' facility with research has deteriorated because he's not had a slayer to guide, so he's gotten sloppy, or

2) The books in bizarro-land contain unreliable information.

I don't see how either of these work. Buffy not coming to Sunnydale shouldn't have at all affected the training Giles got from the Watchers' Council years earlier. True, he's not been an active watcher since he came to town, but he's still a "white hat," and has obviously recruited a makeshift Scooby Gang to help protect the few innocents left in the one-Starbucks town. It seems reasonable to assume that they're facing the same (and worse) threats in bizarro-Sunnydale that we've seen in plain old Sunnydale. If anything, he'd have to be faster and truer with the research there than in our reality because he couldn't rely on the slayer to bail them out if trouble found them before they knew how to defeat it.

If it hasn't affected Giles, then, it seems even less reasonable to say that the books, which are centuries old, contain inaccurate information as result of a wish that only affects the last 2 1/2 years of reality. I don't see how long-dead watchers could possibly be affected by what Anyanka did for/to Cordy.

I'm totally willing to admit I might just be dense here, and if I've come on too strong, I apologize. I'd really just like someone to explain to me what I'm missing. Any help available?

--th

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wishverse Giles -- LittleBit, 14:26:15 04/29/02 Mon

No, not too strong at all. For me, it may just be waaaay too many years of reading comics when I was younger and the number of times (especially in DC comics) that an alternate universe would exist in which things were different. As in The Wish, there would be one (maybe two) character(s) who traveled between the two, in this case Cordelia.

In the alternate universe(s) other characters are usually different in some way: personality, relationships, roles, good guy who's bad guy, and vice versa. In the WV, we see characters who have developed differently; the simplest one to see is Buffy who is much more the slayer the WC wanted: hard, has a job to do, doesn't want to waste her time. All I was saying is that since this alternate universe seems to exist independently of the BuffyVerse (or how else could VampWillow be summoned to BV Sunnydale), we should be wary of making the assumption that the characters and roles, and even the prophecies are identical to the ones we know from the BV.

I hope that makes sense. [It does to me, but my mind was warped early on by 12� literature. ;) -- O boy, just gave away an age bracket there, didn't I!]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wishverse Giles -- Marrec, 18:26:59 04/29/02 Mon

Indeed, a prime example of this theory is... why the hell didn't the Master open up the good 'ole Hellmouth and suck the world into a never-ending darkness that only the blackest hearted or more pious of the Buffyverse inhabitants could survive?

Simple: The Master in Dopplegangland just didn't want to. :P

Dopplegangland_Giles probably had reacurring episodes of 'The Ripper' througout his carrer as a 'White Hat' because, lets face it, it was much more dangerous then being the Researchy Watcher we all know and love. So he probably didn't go into 'Research Mode' as much as Buffyverse Giles, so he probably kinda sucked at it. Hense his bad guess about the Power-Center... but, maybe destroying it had repurcussions we have yet to see? *scary music* And no, I'm not paranoid... *glance*

[> [> [> [> [> Re: My thoughts on Anya (slight HB spoiler) -- tim, 12:02:05 04/27/02 Sat

I agree; the fitting-ness of the punishment is hard to deny. And as I mentioned in my original post, I was never trying to excuse her actions, just mitigate some of the fury (or is that Fury?) I've seen leveled at her in the past week. Part of the "walk a mile in the other person's shoes" philosophy I strive for, but reach only rarely. For what it's worth, though, if she had forgotten what being mortal means, then nostalgia might also be a more reasonable reaction. (Notice I say _more_ reasonable; this doesn't mean it _is_ reasonable, just less-sociopathic.)

Your point about her characterization is well-received too; both her and Xander have really gotten short shrift from the writers, which makes their relationship a litle difficult to buy. While they proclaim this great love, I've not seen much (and I realize I'm treading on thin ice with a lot of people here) to make me either believe or understand it. They were, as you say, thrown together rather incongruously at the end of S3, and seem to have stayed together for lack of any other options. The focus of the stories tends to be always on the other scoobies (with Hell's Bells as a notable exception), so one is left to take their relationship on faith. Not as satisfying as one might want, but I suppose it's always something. :)

--th

[> [> [> [> Re: My thoughts on Anya (still spoilery) -- tim, 12:30:50 04/27/02 Sat

Goodness! That's fascinating, but I'm not sure I'm smart enough to keep up with you! :) I do _love_ the idea of PR-Cordy in the normal Buffyverse-- can you even imagine the looks she's get from Harmony, et al?

I think the simplest explanation is the one that's come up a couple of times (including your point #1): that Giles, or more accurately, his book, was simply incorrect. On one level that appealing; after all, there's only one Anyanka, and she's never had her power center destroyed before, so how would anyone really know what would happen?

At the same time, though, that line of logic opens up a whole new can of worms. There have been any number of foes for which no true advance knowledge of their weakness could have been known, yet somehow the books always contain the crucial information they need to defeat the bad guy. It's part of the streamlining of reality that goes with creating a TV show. And since there's never been another recorded instance of the books being wrong on a matter of lore or fact (prophecies have been averted, but those are different), there's no reason to believe that the books have made a mistake here.

As to the alternate universe idea, that works nicely in Cordy's case, but less well for the Chicago demon and others we've heard Anya talk about. Did she transport the Chicago demon's spurned lover into an alternate universe where he was a demon? That's not much of a punishment for the guy who actually did the philandering, who is back in his own universe, happy as an unfaithful lark.

I'm not sure there is a satisfying answer here. As I said originally, the best I can do is that he was shielded from the destruction of the amulet by being in another dimension at the time, but that's pretty weak, as well. Unless it's resolved in the coming episodes, one might have to write it off as one of those inconsistencies that inevitably crops up when creating an entire world like this.

I very much appreciate your thoughts.

--th

[> Musings on vengeance demons... -- Ixchel, 19:48:04 04/27/02 Sat

Welcome, tim!

I do believe that Anya forgot what being human was like (1120 years is a long time). Also being powerful and immortal (IMHO) would explain how she became so removed from regular human experience that she is still adjusting now (and may never act "normal"). And if you consider the time period and (my speculation) place in which she was last human (the latter part of the 9th century, possibly Russia), life was very different then (famines, warlords, plagues), at least from present day Sunnydale. Human life (particularly that of peasants) meant very little (like in some poorer, conflict-ridden countries today). IMHO, Anya began her second life as a human in S3 with remnants of her demon personality (arrogance, impatience with humanity, disdain for the mortal realm) that slowly were stripped away from her by her human emotions. She became almost childlike and appeared to, in a way, start over. Her pleasure at being useful and part of human society (NPLH and Family, S5) seems genuine to me. IMHO, her love for Xander is as well (even as early as S3, GD1 she expresses emotion for him, "When I think that something could happen to you, it feels bad inside, like I might vomit."). As a side note, I have my doubts that Halfrek was Cecily. I'm not sure why I think this, but I could always be proven wrong later.

My own theory is that vengeance demons (who, I'm making an assumption here, are all made from humans) are, in a way, emotionally arrested at the time of changing from human to demon. At that point the person is full of vengeance and that's how he/she lives out his/her demon existence. Basically, acting out his/her need for revenge over and over. Never realizing that the need can never be satisfied (in fact not even desiring closure on the emotion, but rather living in that state forever). I believe this explains the vengeance demons' lack of concern about the wisher (example: Cordelia and Dawn). It is not about the wisher at all, but only about the vengeance demon. Regarding Halfrek's statements concerning the children needing her, I'm sure those children suffered from their wishes more often than not (if not always). Perhaps some demons (Halfrek), if not all, delude themselves by thinking that they are dispensing justice. Your idea of their inability to comprehend human death is interesting, but, JMHO, I think may be more that they simply don't consider the consequences of the vengeance wish and/or don't care to do so. D'Hoffryn seemed to sum up this attitude best in SB when, once she sees what her spell has done, Willow asks him to help her friends. He responds that they aren't his concern (no malice really, just indifference). I think I agree with Marrec that Anya's delight in creating chaos and suffering was her pride in performing her job well (probably in a way that pleased D'Hoffryn). Thus, her preference for Cordelia's wishworld. I believe D'Hoffryn (who I don't think was previously human) recruits these vengeful people for his own reasons (simply to cause pain for humans, or something else?). There seems to be a similarity between Anya and Halfrek and Justine, et al. I would even suggest a parallel between D'Hoffryn and Holtz. They both seem to use their recruits for their own ends.

Regarding the question of the necklace, here's a possible theory: once it was destroyed all wishes granted by Anya, in her present incarnation as Sunnydale student, were reversed. Perhaps Cordelia wasn't the only scorned woman at Sunnydale High that Anya was working on. Actually, I always assumed that Giles was mistaken and the necklace's destruction simply negated the last wish. There is, of course, the question of how the necklace got from Giles (when he took it from Cordelia's body) back to Anya. I explain this away with some sort of magical homing behavior on the part of the necklace (weak, I know). As to why the wishverse still existed after Cordelia was returned to the normal Sunnydale, possibly once an alternate universe is created it can't be destroyed?

Ixchel

[> [> Re: Musings on vengeance demons... (up to OaFA) -- LittleBit, 22:30:57 04/27/02 Sat

Vengeance Demons, Souls & Remorse (up to Older and Far Away)

It seems that vengeance demons differ from many of the other demons in the BuffyVerse, particularly vampires, in that they are culled from humans, and can also return to human status. This then begs the question, what is the nature of the soul pre-, during and post-vengeance demonhood?

Pre-demonhood, I would expect a regular old garden variety human soul. One that, at the very least, allows its 'owner' to commit acts of revenge that are sufficient for capturing the notice of the demon d'Hoffryn.

What then occurs when the person accepts the position? To apply logic: either the soul goes or the soul stays. Does a demon possess the body and the soul exits to the 'ether', remaining available should the demon become human again? Is the acceptance of a power center the event that 'creates' a vengeance demon? Does the demon's power center allow it to possess the human body while keeping the soul intact but suppressed? If so, what effect does this have on a resident but negated soul? How 'aware' is the soul of actions performed by the vengeance demon?

If the demon's power center is destroyed, is the demon always returned to humanity? Is the ex- demon always trapped in the guise most recently used? Is the original soul returned? Is any soul returned?

To relate these questions to Anya, we know enough about her to know that she was offered the position of vengeance demon after using a spell to turn her cheating Viking boyfriend into a troll and she accepted. So pre-demonhood Anya was capable of significant magic�transformation�and was willing to used it.

She then spent over a thousand years as a vengeance demon, during which time she specialized in wreaking vengeance on men who, according to the women who made the wishes, had done them wrong. She was worshipped at one time. By the time we make her acquaintance, we do not see her summoned, we see her essentially lying in wait for Cordelia, and following a line of conversation designed to elicit a revenge wish. In other words, entrapment. However, in the execution of this wish, events transpire that lead to the destruction of her power center. According to the research by the Wishverse Giles, without her power center, she would "just be an ordinary woman again." Was the ordinary woman was present all along? [I make the distinction of the Wishverse Giles because as the other main characters were quite different in the WV, we know that WV Giles is an ex- watcher, not Buffy's mentor, and therefore should not be expected to be 'Research Guy' just because he's Giles, which helps to explain why his books or his interpretation may be less than accurate]

Again, a significant difference is demonstrated between vengeance demons, as represented by Anya, and vampires, as represented by Angelus. A rather powerful curse was required to restore Angelus' soul. Destruction of her power center returns Anya to ordinary womanhood, which should include a soul, otherwise it would not be ordinary. The restoration of Anya to ordinary humanity appeared to be a simple process, unnoticed by her until the wish-granting failed. Quite different from the painful change Angel went through, both while losing his soul and again while regaining it.

Angel, when his soul is restored is shown both times as being very disoriented, unable to recall the events that transpired during his time as Angelus. We also know that this memory loss was temporary, and he was eventually able to recall everything. In Anya's case, the opposite appears to have happened. When she first becomes an ordinary woman again, she continues to attempt to perform her vengeance functions; she goes so far as to ask d'Hoffryn to restore her, and to then ask Willow to help her perform a spell to retrieve her power center (although under false pretenses). She's entirely aware of her actions as a demon and attempts to continue to define herself as one.

But she is no longer a demon. If Wishverse Giles' books are correct, she's an ordinary woman. [And yes, this makes the rest of us purty-durned not ordinary]. In her conversation with d'Hoffryn they both make mention of the fact that she is now mortal. She is now in active possession of a soul, or so we think; for while ordinary womanhood should infer a soul, simple mortality does not. She begins, slowly, to figure out how to live in this culture and in this time. She both amuses and annoys them all by her attachment to money. What they don�t realize is that money is a simple concept to understand. It's easy to grasp how much things cost, how money and goods exchange hands, and why having money is a good thing. It is far more difficult to come to terms with emotions that she hasn't experienced for more than a millennium. To figure out the rules for behavior and to conform with the 'stupid' ones. Which she must do with very little guidance from anyone but Xander. She's not really accepted by the Scooby Gang, she's tolerated for Xander's sake. Precious little compassion is shown to her, and yet she's supposed to grasp the concept. And yes, I expected compassion; we had seen it for Angel even after they experienced him as Angelus.

We wonder why she doesn't feel remorse for her deeds when she rarely sees consequences to anyone else who does harmful things, and does them without a vengeance demon mandate. Dawn steals from her and she's the only one who really seems upset. Xander does a little harmless spell to bring some fun into everyone's life, people die, Dawn is almost taken to a hell dimension and Buffy comes close to it herself, but no big. No one chastises him, yet Anya should understand that she should take responsibility for her actions? Why? Willow performs a resurrection spell that is strictly forbidden by all the laws of nature, and finally, Giles tells her how reckless it was, but there have still been no real consequences. Perhaps the possession of a soul is less critical to taking responsibility and feeling remorse for past actions and behaving in a caring manner than we would like to think; perhaps seeing behaviors modeled and practiced has a greater impact. Yet she's still struggling to get it...and coming closer as time passes.

Looking forward to your comments! :)

[> [> [> Re: Musings on vengeance demons... (up to OaFA) -- Ixchel, 17:24:30 04/28/02 Sun

LittleBit, interesting post.

IMHO, the possession of a soul in the Buffyverse _inclines_ the possessor to feeling empathy, kindness and guilt (of course this inclination can be ignored). I get the impression (again, JMHO) that the soul doesn't vary from individual to individual, but is rather a quality that facilitates certain "positive" emotions. I don't believe that an individual's soul contains any of the individual's personality, but rather that its presence or absence can cause different aspects of a personality to be expressed or supressed (or simply controlled or rerouted). As such, IMHO, the soul has no awareness.

I would postulate that during the time that a person is a vengeance demon the soul is supressed or forced out by the demonic power-center. If it is forced out, then once the demonic influence is removed, perhaps the soul returns. This could be applied to vampires as well. I would speculate that being within a person is the "natural" state for a soul, so an outside force (the addition of a power center or a vampire/demon) is necessary to "push" the soul from the person. By my reasoning, Darla had her human soul when W&H brought her back and Anya has her human soul now. This could also explain why strong magic was necessary to force Angel's soul into him. This could explain the differences between Anya's and Angel's respective "resoulings". Once Anya's power center was destroyed, there was no longer a demonic influence on her. Her soul (presumably) had no difficulty reentering her and her behavior afterwards can be explained by her personality, long tenure as a demon (it was what she knew) and that the soul's "hints" can be ignored if the individual wants to do so (as we have had examples of). Angel's "resoulings" were dramatic and difficult because the soul was being forced in while the demonic influence was still present (perhaps the human soul and demonic influences repel each other?).

I think you have an excellent point about how money can be a simple concept for Anya to grasp, while other ideas can be elusive. I do have to disagree about the group's acceptance of her, however. IMHO, the reacceptance of Angel was influenced by two factors, the seeming radical personality difference between him and Angelus, and that they knew him as "good", then "evil", then "good" again. So their primary assessment of him may have helped his case. Anya was first known to them as "evil", then "good", I believe this worked against her (as it also does against Spike). Also, Angel did save Willow's life shortly after he returned, Willow explictly stated that it inclined her to accept him again. IMHO, Anya has done many things to help the group (not just Xander), but I also believe that she has been fully integrated into the SG. I agree that she was accepted, at first, for Xander's sake, but I believe they have grown to like and care about her. I believe Anya has close ties with the group. For example, I think Triangle was a turning point in her and Willow's relationship (IMHO, Willow had legitimate concerns about Anya and Xander). She and Willow seem friendly, they dance happily together with Xander in ATW and DT. Willow expresses how badly she feels for Anya in HB (as do Buffy and Dawn, they all seemed sympathetic and ready to offer her comfort, but she refused it, understandably). Anya and Tara seem to spend time together outside the SG (IWMTLY) and seem to be friends (in TR they are thumbwrestling). Also in TR, Tara defends her during a discussion about Buffy (it seems Xander, Anya, Willow and Tara are having dinner together and it doesn't seem like an isolated occurence). Giles also seems to genuinely like Anya, though when or if he returns they may be a little awkward around each other (TR).

As to the question of remorse, I suppose I have a controversial opinion about this. If Anya acts in a postive way and helps the SG in Buffy's work (which I believe she does), then she is doing well IMHO. Does this negate the horrible things she has done? No, but nothing really could.

All in all, I love the character of Anya. I think she adds a great deal to the show. Her development from S3 to the present has been interesting, charming, hilarious and poignant.

Ixchel

[> [> [> [> Re: Musings on vengeance demons... (up to OaFA) -- Halcyon, 03:48:21 04/29/02 Mon

That's exactly what Angel has realised, in his desire to atone and become human he lost sight of the mission beyond his own desires. So if that was the case Anya/Angel would be a kind of mirror image.

[> [> [> [> [> Not sure I'm following you, Halcyon... -- Ixchel, 16:51:34 04/29/02 Mon

I see definite similarities between Angel and Anya (and both with Spike), as being once destructive and now trying to contribute positively (of course Angel's actions are on a larger scale than Anya's, and Spike's are, endlessly, debatable).

By being Angel's mirror image, do you mean that Anya already _is_ human, has a clear idea of the mission (assist Buffy, which I would agree that she does) and needs to _find_ the desire to atone (in the way that Angel rediscovered his mission)?

Or have I completely misunderstood?

Ixchel

[> [> [> [> Re: Musings on vengeance demons... (up to Hell's Bells) -- LittleBit, 18:35:43 04/29/02 Mon

In many ways Anya is one of my favorites too. I agree entirely with your description of her development over the seasons.

I also have a somewhat against-the-tide opinion about whether or not she needs to show visible remorse about her past. She has definitely come in and tried to be as productive a member of the Scooby Gang as she can be. I think her contributions have increased in their helpfulness as she has grown in her humanity. In particular, I contend that without her the end of The Gift would have been very different. It was, after all, Anya who made just about all the useful suggestions that allowed the group to have a chance against Glory.

I have read a number of opinions that Anya should be remorseful like Angel. I think this is another of the differences between them, and it goes back to something I have said in an other post: that we not forget that Angel was cursed to live in torment. Anya just became human again. [Of course, this then leads to the question: when Willow restored the soul did she restore the curse? Because Angel doesn't seem to have the same kind of torment, but that's another topic.]

As to how completely accepted she is with the group, I admit to still having my doubts. As you mentioned, the scoobies knew Angel before Angelus, and were willing to return to their former opinions after he deomonstrated that he was Angel, and dedicated to helping them again. (Meaning, of course, that Xander didn't trust him). But with Anya, they never actually knew her as a vengeance demon, they only had her descriptions to go by. I do realize that the first actual contact they have as a group is in Dopplegangland when she gets Willow to help her with the spell to regain her amulet, and then blows Willow's cover in the Bronze. The indication at the end is that they think she's having delusions of grandeur, and are unimpressed with her declarations of powers that she had. I am certain that if she had not approached Xander to be her date for the Prom, and his other choice was sock-date, none of them would ever have approached her.

There have only been a few times when Anya herself said something that seemed to directly reflect how she believed the SG perceived her.

One was in Into The Woods, which, granted, was before she and Willow had it out in Triangle. It is however one of my all time favorite Anya quotes: "That's so very humorous. Make fun of the ex- demon! I can just hear you in private. (talks to the chicken foot) 'I dislike that Anya. She's newly human and strangely literal.'"

In Triangle Anya finally gets what bothers Willow, "Oh. You think I'm gonna hurt Xander? I would *never* hurt Xander! (Willow looks skeptical) You really think I would do that!" At the same time though she also expresses what worries her: "But you're always doing everything you can to, to point out how much I'm an outsider." I will agree that by the end of the episode and in following episodes she and Willow are on much more cordial terms.

The one that I keep going back to for Anya's feelings however is her conversation with Halfrek in DoubleMeat Palace, only four episodes before Hell's Bells. Halfrek is one of the very few friends that Anya will talk to about her self.

HALFREK: Tell me more about Xander.
ANYA: You keep asking about him. Do you think I'm making a mistake?
HALFREK: Do you?
ANYA: Well, no! Xander, he... (ponders) He's very kind, and brave ... he has the sweetest smile and the nicest body, and ... he loves me. I mean, sometimes it isn't easy, but, he does.
HALFREK: Who told you that it isn't easy to love you?
ANYA: Well, you know, I'll do something, or say something, and, and then he has to say stuff like, (imitating Xander) 'it's incorrect for you to appreciate money so much,' or, or, 'Observe: here is how a real human would behave.'
HALFREK: Oh, so he corrects you?
ANYA: Well, no, it's just ... um ... well, no, I mean, now I'm all confused, I mean, wha, do you think there's something wrong with, with the way he treats me?
HALFREK: (shrugs) Do you?
ANYA: Okay, you have to stop doing that. I love Xander.
HALFREK: Even though he thinks he knows better than you?
ANYA: B-but he doesn't, he doesn't think that.
HALFREK: (quickly) Okay. I'm sorry. (small laugh) I was just curious. You know, you don't have to say another thing about it if you're not comfortable.
ANYA: B-but I am! I mean ... it's not like I'm hiding any deficiencies or anything.
HALFREK: Hmm.

The doubts she expresses here are not about Xander. They're about herself, that she is not easy to love, that he has to correct her behavior, he tells her how a real human would act. She wonders if there's something wrong with the way he treats her. And this is Xander, about whom she should be most certain.

The other side of the full acceptance issue (and I am differentiating acceptance by the group from acceptance by the individuals) is that I truly wonder if any single member of the scoobies (excluding Xander), when looking for someone to hang out with, would call Anya. Not a group or couples thing, just hey, wanna have lunch today? At this time I still have to say, no. It's this aspect of acceptance that I think is missing. It's why I believe Anya didn't want comforting from anyone in the group at the end of HB.

I also like the idea of Angel's restoration being so painful because of the resistance of the demon to the presence of the soul, and Anya's being simpler because there was no resistance. How does this correlate with the pain he demonstrated when the curse was lifted? Is it possible that the soul, once an equilibrium is established when both a demon and a soul inhabit a person, will resist removal as well?

[All quotes from Psyche's transcripts]

The Case for Jar Jar - OT Editorial -- Dedalus, 19:49:52 04/26/02 Fri

Hope Masq doesn't mind me posting this here, but I did say I would when it was finally put up. This is long, but hey, it revolves around a most controversial subject. Still, people here could probably appreciate it more than most. And I love a good challenge.

http://www.theforce.net/jedicouncil/editorials/

[> I too have a case for Jar Jar, only it is small and has no air holes. -- Ian, 20:07:16 04/26/02 Fri

[> [> Re: Poor Jar Jar, no one appreciates... -- LittleBit, 20:25:36 04/26/02 Fri

...that without him, all the characters would heve been relentlessly gloomy and serious.

[> [> LMAO! -- yez, 21:18:13 04/26/02 Fri

[> [> Ian, u r sick <g>.....umm you don't have a case for kittens do you? -- Rufus, 01:50:26 04/27/02 Sat

[> [> Call it Schroedinger's Jar. Don't open it. -- Sophist, 08:37:51 04/27/02 Sat

[> You're a brave man, D! -- Dichotomy, 20:24:38 04/26/02 Fri

While Jar Jar was never near and dear to my heart, I've never had a horrible aversion to him either. I enjoyed your take on his significance--very well thought out and interesting. Meesa liking it! (My lame attempt at Jar Jar speak)

[> Re: The Case for Jar Jar - OT Editorial -- Rufus, 23:01:54 04/26/02 Fri

Oh, very nice editorial.....I thought Jar Jar was alright, he brought a certain silliness to all the brooding energy in the film. But, I do admit, if I never see him in another Star Wars film...I won't exactly send out a search party for him....;)

[> I agree... -- Rob, 00:44:24 04/27/02 Sat

I'm definitely not a huge Jar Jar fan, but I like him well enough...I never saw exactly what the huge uproar was about. If he's in another Star Wars movie, I'll be happy. If he's not in another one, I'll be happy. I'm just happy that there are new Star Wars movies at all.

[> Star Wars SUCKS!!! -- Vegeta, 08:02:47 04/27/02 Sat

I can't believe that Star Wars is making an appearance on this board. BtVS is far superior to Star Wars in every way, with the exception of visual effects. The story lines for those films are so elementary it's utterly annoying these days. I'll admit when I was a child I was ammused with the early films, however as an adult I find them nearly unwatchable. The characters are so contrived and the story line just blows. I can't even watch the films for kitsch value anymore. Suffice to say George Lucas won't be getting my $8. In short, I think we should be spending more time discussing a brillantly thought out and executed BtVS, and reframe from bring up the horribly flawed Star Wars epic.

[> [> Why don't you just take a knife directly to my childhood? -- Rob, 08:38:45 04/27/02 Sat

[> [> Reiterating the call for civility -- matching mole, 06:51:44 04/28/02 Sun

I've never been a huge Star Wars fan myself and The Phantom Menace certainly did nothing to change that. But I don't see the need to attack it. I thought Dedalus' editorial was quite interesting both in terms of insight into the films and into fan culture surrounding it. Actually I thought Jar Jar was one of the better aspects of The Phantom Menace.

[> Re: The Case for Jar Jar - OT Editorial -- Dedalus, 08:37:16 04/27/02 Sat

Thank you all for your feedback, of course. I appreciate everyone who waded through that. I have to say it turned out relatively well.

Anyway, for those interested, Jar Jar will have a much more limited role in Episode Two.

I do promise to contribute something Buffy-wise in the future, but you know how it is. May 16th is way too close to obsess over anything else.

[> [> Actually, the editorial was quite clever. I enjoyed it. -- Ian, 09:42:37 04/27/02 Sat

[> Nicely done, Ded. -- Rattletrap, 14:57:19 04/27/02 Sat

[> [> George Lucas has said that he was disappointed with Episode 1 -- JCC, 06:47:23 04/28/02 Sun

The poor movie didn't have a chance. From my point of view, the biggest problem: The Pod-racing scene was far too long.

Classic Movie of the Week - April 26th 2002 - with Guest Host *** Dichotomy *** (Yay!) -- OnM, 20:23:47 04/26/02 Fri

*******

Welcome, friends and movie fans, to the last in this series of �Guest Host� Classic Movie of the Week
columns! As you certainly know by now, new Buffy episodes are scheduled to begin again next
Tuesday, and thus my �vacation time� (as the E.C. so debatably put it) is drawing to a close. Please put
your hands together (virtual or corporeal, or best of all, both) and give a warm round of applause for the
talented Dichotomy and a great review of a Classic Movie.

Lights, word processor, action!!

*******

The director... throws every trick in the book at us, and then the book, and then himself.

............ Roger Ebert

A kinetic meditation on fate and destiny.

............ James Berardinelli

~~~~~~~

What if...?

If only...

~~~~~~~

Outcomes are altered, lives changed, new realities realized all by invoking the simple word if.

We�ve seen numerous examples of the �what ifs� and �if onlys� on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and
Angel. The �reality� of memory was radically altered with the appearance of Dawn in The Real
Me and Cordelia�s wish for a Buffy-less Sunnydale turned out very much not the way she
planned in The Wish. Jonathan became larger than life in Superstar, and Angel�s battle with
the Mohra demon in I Will Remember You brought about both great joy and greater sorrow.

Then there�s the whole question of Normal Again-- Is it live, or is it the Asylumverse?

In many, if not most episodes, major decisions made by the inhabitants of the Buffyverse had dire or
far-reaching consequences for them all. But what about the smaller variances: the second lost to a stumble,
the moment passed in hesitation, the decision to go left instead of right? Run Lola Run, a
German film directed by Tom Twyker and starring Franka Potente in the title role is an exhilarating ride
through multiple possiblities realized.

While the movie itself is visually complex, the story at the core of it is quite simple: Lola gets a phone call
from her boyfriend, Manni (Moritz Bleibtreu), who informs her that he is going be killed unless he can
produce 100,000 marks in just twenty minutes. Turns out that he left the bag containing the money on the
subway, and a homeless man made off with it. The money is owed to a gangster, and so Manni has good
reason to fear for his life. Manni is so desperate that he�s considering robbing the store across the street.
What will Lola do? Lola runs...

Lola gets three separate shots at saving her lover, but the twist comes in that the movie is really only 20
minutes long, but the 20 minutes is repeated three times, each in its own �reality�. Each time, the outcome
is affected by deceptively minute occurrences-- sometimes she is tripped by an obnoxious kid in her
apartment building, sometimes she avoids him; sometimes she bumps into a lady walking her baby,
sometimes she strides right by her. This is chaos theory on speed. (It�s also interesting to note that Lola
herself seems somewhat aware that the time-space continuum is unhinged, according to Twyker.)

We don�t know all that much about Lola, other than that she�s a tattooed young woman with flaming red
hair who lives at home and is utterly devoted to her Manni. But as portrayed by Franka Potente, she is
much more the heroine than that mild-mannered description suggests. And, oh boy, does she ever live up
to the title-- girlfriend can run! Lola�s pace is frenetic. This movie is a bubbling gulasch of
animation, video, film, stills, color and B&W seasoned with an urgent techno soundtrack (composed in
part by Twyker with vocals by Potente)-- it was made for the music video age. But to view it as merely an
81-minute music video is to miss out on all its symbolism and suggestion.

The three realities are all tied together with red-hued glimpses of intimate moments between Lola and
Manni, which underscore the fact that they really are in love; short but quiet moments that serve to balance
the frantic pace of the rest of the film. Themes of devotion, desperation, determination and destiny add
human warmth and substance to this slick-looking flick. And it�s just a hell of a lot of fun to watch.

You�ll want to see Run Lola Run on a DVD player or at least a good-quality VCR so you can go
back later and review the �mini movies� that flash throughout the film frame-by-frame. Each time Lola
crosses paths with different people, like the lady with the baby, their lives take vastly different courses,
which the viewer sees in a series of still shots that fly by in less than 5 seconds. Through multiple viewings
you�ll also catch things you may have missed the first time (Hey, who�s in those cars involved in the
accident?) The DVD�s audio commentary track is also fun to listen to, as Twyker and Potente discuss not
only the making of the film, but interesting bits of trivia. (For example, as a German viewer, this film would
have been even more fun because many of the minor roles were played by famous German film stars).

Right from the opening credits, Run Lola Run will sweep you up into its whirlwind of what
ifs and keep you rooting for Lola to win.

E. Pluribus Guestibus, (~swooosh~), Unum,

Dichotomy

~~~~~~~

Fast Technical Facts:

Run Lola Run is available on DVD, as Dichotomy already mentioned. The film was released in
1998 (1999 in the U.S.) and has a running time of 1 hour and 21 minutes. The original theatrical aspect
ratio is 1.85:1, which is preserved on the DVD.

The screenplay was written by director Tom Tykwer. Cinematography was by Frank Griebe, with film
editing by Mathilde Bonnefoy. Production Design was by Alexander Manasse, and costume design was by
Monika Jacobs. Original music was by Reinhold Heil, Johnny Klimek, Franka Potente (the theme song I
Wish and others) and by Tom Tykwer. The theatrical sound mix was presented in Dolby Digital, and
the same of course for the DVD.

Cast overview:

Franka Potente .... Lola
Moritz Bleibtreu .... Manni
Herbert Knaup .... Lola�s Father
Nina Petri .... Jutta Hansen
Armin Rohde .... Herr Schuster
Joachim Kr�l .... Norbert von Au (The homeless man)
Ludger Pistor .... Herr Meier
Suzanne von Borsody .... Frau J�ger
Sebastian Schipper .... Mike
Julia Lindig .... Doris

*******

Miscellaneous:

The miscellaneous department is still on vacation. Boy, is there ever gonna be jet lag...

*******

The Question of the Week:

One of the things that makes Run Lola Run such a striking film to watch is the mixture of visual
techniques employed by the filmmakers to emphasize the underlying theme. What other movies can you
recall that employed this kind of razzle-dazzle and successfully kept you involved? What movies do you
think tried and failed miserably with the same techniques?

Post �em if you�ve got �em, and take care!

Peace.

:-)

*******

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 26th 2002 - with Guest Host *** Dichotomy *** (Yay!) -- Rob, 00:28:27 04/27/02 Sat

My favorite movie, "Moulin Rouge," is, in essence, a cinematic exercise in razzle-dazzling. Using everything from quick cuts to fast forwards toblack-and-white to freeze-frames to quick zooms to computer-generated images to shaky cams to upside down frames, this film completely and convincingly creates its world of an imaginary early 20th century Paris. This love story, by itself, is meant to be very surreal and dreamlike, a state of heightened emotions befitting Hollywood musicals and grand opera, and every cinematic technique in this film is meant to enhance this theme. And it works absolutely perfectly.

Another movie I admire greatly that is filled with similar tricks is "Natural Born Killers," which used all these images to create a satire of modern media and its bloodthirst.

Actually, oddly enough, a film that I think failed miserably with this technique is "Run, Lola, Run" itself. I thought that film's soundtrack was loud and abrasive, and the running far too mindnumbingly repetitive. I admired some of its concepts, like the moments when the film freezes on a character and shows his or her future in a series of snapshots, and l liked the "choose your own adventure," "video game" style of the film. But whereas, in "Moulin Rouge," all the crazy tricks and illusions added to the emotional core of the film, and helped build the very world of the film itself, I found the similar things in "Run Lola Run" to be put in just for the sake of being flashy, modern, and MTV-ish. I personally thought the film was a mess, and worse, a pretentious mess that alluded to far greater themes (evidenced by some lines of dialogue and the strange, expressionistic opening sequence) that it couldn't deliver on so it filled it in with the quick edits, the cartoons, and that horrible, horrible soundtrack.

Rob

[> [> With that said... -- Rob, 00:36:49 04/27/02 Sat

I re-read my post, and I hope it didn't sound like I was dissing you, Dichotomy. I enjoyed your post very much, even though I didn't really agree about the movie. I didn't make that clear enough with my anti-"Run, Lola, Run" rant, and I thought it may have come off as a little rude.

And, with that said, another movie that employs similar techniques that I love is "Trainspotting." Too tired to write more about it, but maybe I"ll add more later...

Rob

[> [> [> Re: With that said... -- AngelVSAngelus, 08:32:46 04/27/02 Sat

I'm the complete opposite as far as RLR and Moulin Rouge are concerned. I loved RLR for all the reasons Dichotomy spoke of, and wasn't very fond of Moulin Rouge for a couple of reasons:
a)soundtrack. I'd of appreciated if they actually came up with their own music, something I did appreciate about RLR.
b)cinematography. Another personal aesthetic thing, I found RLR to be much less a mess than MR. The simplicity of its premise allowed for a constant direction, and all of the animation, editing tricks, and kinetic camera work all headed in that direction. With Moulin Rouge I felt as if the director (who also jarred me with his modernized Romeo and Juliet)was just tugging me all over the place. From absinthe fairy fantasies to anachronistic performances of a Nirvana song (god how I HATED their renditions of many of my favs, including that one.)
c) story. I love true love stories, but I can never buy what sadly, to me, tends to be the Hollywood rendition thereof: boy meets girl, they exchange names, BLAM. Love. That equation is what prevents me from enjoying Romeo and Juliet. I guess I just don't buy the whole love at first sight deal. Reminds me of Mission Impossible 2.

So, to each their own, I suppose. I'm totally diggin' RLR.

[> [> [> [> Re: With that said... -- Rob, 09:02:05 04/27/02 Sat

Regarding soundtrack, I thought MR's was absolutely brilliant. The point was not to make an original score, but to use pop songs over the past century as rock opera. That was the original concept behind the musical. The anachronistic nature of the music made the story timeless and not tied into any particular time or place. Further, it greatly improved all the music I thought, for it lifted them from pop songs to truly beautiful, sweeping classical music. The "Like a Virgin" was a great Gilbert & Sullivanesque piece, with a Monty Python bend, and a bit of "Hello Dolly" thrown in for good measure. The rendition of "Your Song" was perhaps the most beautiful version of the song I'd ever heard, with the operatic tenor's voice and the choir blended in with Ewan McGregor's. And "Roxanne" never sounded like this before...but also never sounded better.

Ostensibly, it was the turn of the century into the 20th century, when it was actually symbolically portraying the turn of the century from the 20th to the 21st. It is a modern love story, that purposely borrows from everything from Victorian-style penny-dreadful novels and melodramas to opera to Hollywood musicals. The fact is that MR is a fairy tale.

And, further, it is a pastiche. Yes, it uses all the cliches, but it is done in a very purposeful, deconstructive way. In so doing, it has created a far more moving tragedy than any of the stories it alludes to. MR is the only movie in recent memory that made me cry, more like bawl, actually...and also the only movie that's ever made me cry that I've wanted to watch over and over again.

Here is Roger Ebert's take on MR. He's far more eloquent than I, and he makes an extremely brilliant argument for how the editing and directing style of MR perfectly fits the world it's created. He gave the film, btw, a 3 1/2 stars out of 4, and named it one of his favorite films of the year:

"Like almost every American college boy who ever took a cut-rate flight to Paris, I went to the Moulin Rouge on my first night in town. I had a cheap standing-room ticket way in the back, and over the heads of the crowd, through a haze of smoke, I could vaguely see the dancing girls. The tragedy of the Moulin Rouge is that by the time you can afford a better seat, you've outgrown the show.

"Moulin Rouge" the movie is more like the Moulin Rouge of my adolescent fantasies than the real Moulin Rouge ever could be. It isn't about tired, decadent people, but about glorious romantics, who believe in the glitz and the tinsel--who see the nightclub not as a shabby tourist trap but as a stage for their dreams. Even its villain is a love-struck duke who gnashes his way into the fantasy, content to play a starring role however venal.

"The film is constructed like the fevered snapshots created by your imagination before an anticipated erotic encounter. It doesn't depend on dialogue or situation but on the way you imagine a fantasy object first from one angle and then another. Satine, the heroine, is seen not so much in dramatic situations as in poses--in postcards for the yearning mind. The movie is about how we imagine its world. It is perfectly appropriate that it was filmed on sound stages in Australia; Paris has always existed best in the minds of its admirers.

"The film stars Nicole Kidman as Satine, a star dancer who has a deadly secret; she is dying of tuberculosis. This is not a secret from the audience, which learns it early on, but from Christian (Ewan McGregor), the would-be writer who loves her. Toulouse-Lautrec (John Leguizamo), the dwarf artist, lives above Christian, and one day comes crashing through the ceiling of their flimsy tenement, sparking a friendship and collaboration: They will write a show to spotlight Satine's brilliance, as well as "truth, beauty, freedom and love." (I was reminded of Gene Kelly and Donald O'Connor's motto in "Singin' in the Rain": "Dignity. Always dignity.") The show must be financed; enter the venal Duke of Worcester (Richard Roxburgh), who wants to pay for the show and for Satine's favors. The ringmaster is Zidler (Jim Broadbent), impresario of the Moulin Rouge.

"Each of these characters is seen in terms of their own fantasies about themselves. Toulouse- Lautrec, for example, is flamboyant and romantic; Christian is lonely and lovelorn; Satine has a good heart and only seems to be a bad girl; Zidler pretends to be all business but is a softy, and the Duke can be so easily duped because being duped is the essence of his role in life. Those who think they can buy affection are suckers; a wise man is content to rent it.

"The movie was directed by Baz Luhrmann, an Australian with a background in opera, whose two previous films were also experiments in exuberant excess. "Strictly Ballroom" made a ballroom competition into a flamboyant theatrical exercise, and his "William Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet" updated the play into a contempo teenage rumble. He constructs "Moulin Rouge" with the melodrama of a 19th century opera, the Technicolor brashness of a 1950s Hollywood musical and the quick-cutting frenzy of a music video. Nothing is really "period" about the movie--it's like a costume revue taking place right now, with hit songs from the 1970s and 1980s (you will get the idea if I mention that Jim Broadbent sings "Like a Virgin").

"I am often impatient with directors who use so many cuts their films seem to have been fed through electric fans. For Luhrmann and this material, it is the right approach. He uses so many different setups and camera angles that some of the songs seem to be cut not on every word of the lyrics, but on every syllable. There's no breathing room. The whole movie is on the same manic pitch as O'Connor's "Make 'em Laugh" number in "Singin' in the Rain." Everything is screwed up to a breakneck pitch, as if the characters have died and their lives are flashing before our eyes.

"This means the actors do not create their characters but embody them. Who is Satine? A leggy redhead who can look like a million in a nightclub costume, and then melt into a guy's arms. Who is Christian? A man who embodies longing with his eyes and sighs--whose very essence, whose entire being, is composed of need for Satine. With the Duke, one is reminded of silent films in which the titles said "The Duke," and then he sneered at you.

"The movie is all color and music, sound and motion, kinetic energy, broad strokes, operatic excess. While it might be most convenient to see it from the beginning, it hardly makes any difference; walk in at any moment and you'll quickly know who is good and bad, who is in love and why--and then all the rest is song, dance, spectacular production numbers, protestations of love, exhalations of regret, vows of revenge and grand destructive gestures. It's like being trapped on an elevator with the circus."

Consequently, he was a bit more reserved regarding "Run, Lola, Run," which he gave 3 stars...

"Run Lola Run" is the kind of movie that could play on the big screen in a sports bar. It's an exercise in kinetic energy, a film of nonstop motion and visual invention. A New York critic called it "post-human," and indeed its heroine is like the avatar in a video game--Lara Croft made flesh.

"The setup: Lola gets a phone call from her boyfriend Manni. He left a bag containing 100,000 deutsche marks on the subway, and a bum made away with it. Manni is expected to deliver the money at noon to a gangster. If he fails, he will probably be killed. His desperate plan: Rob a bank. Lola's desperate plan: Find the money somehow, somewhere, in 20 minutes. Run, Lola, run!

"The director, a young German named Tom Tykwer, throws every trick in the book at us, and then the book, and then himself. The opening credits spring a digital surprise, as a shot of a crowd turns into an aerial point of view and the crowd spells out the name of the movie. Lola sometimes runs so frantically that mere action cannot convey her energy, and the movie switches to animation. There's speedup, instant replay, black and white, whatever. And the story of Lola's 20-minute run is told three times, each time with small differences that affect the outcome and the fate of the characters.

"Film is ideal for showing alternate and parallel time lines. It's literal; we see Lola running, and so we accept her reality, even though the streets she runs through and the people she meets are altered in each story. The message is that the smallest events can have enormous consequences. A butterfly flaps its wings in Malaysia, causing a hurricane in Trinidad. You know the drill.

"Franka Potente, who plays Lola, has a certain offhand appeal. I liked her, though I can't say I got to know her very well, and she is usually out of breath. She runs down sidewalks and the middle of streets, arms pumping, bright red hair flying, stomach tattoo wrinkling in time with her footsteps. She loves Manni and wants to save him from his own stupidity. Occasionally the movie pauses for moments of sharply seen detail, as when her rich father refuses to give her the money, tells her he plans to leave home and marry his mistress, and throws in for good measure: "I'd have never fathered a girl like you. You're a cuckoo's egg."

"Manni does his share of running, too, and there are various alternate scenarios involving car crashes, gunshot wounds and the sly use of that ancient movie situation where guys are carrying a huge sheet of plate glass across the street. Tykwer also adds segments titled "Now and Then," in which he singles out minor characters on the screen and uses just a few startling flash-frames to foresee their entire lifelines.

"Run Lola Run" is essentially a film about itself, a closed loop of style. Movies about characters on the run usually involve a linear story ("The Fugitive" comes to mind), but this one is basically about running--and about the way that movie action sequences have a life and logic of their own."

He closes with:

" I would not want to see a sequel to the film, and at 81 minutes it isn't a second too short, but what it does, it does cheerfully, with great energy, and very well.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Re: With that said... -- AngelVSAngelus, 10:53:58 04/27/02 Sat

I don't know about my agreement with Roger Ebert... the guy hated X-Men and loved Mission Impossible 2.
But the points that he, and you as well, make for Moulin Rouge are totally valid. Like I said before, its just a matter of different aesthetic tastes in the end. I don't enjoy the movie, but now I understand why you do :)
oh, and the whole dead beat dad thing in RLR helped it out, too. I have an admitted bias, eating story elements involving bad fathers like Chinese food on Friday.

[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL...I have a dead beat dad myself, so I totally relate to that, also. :o) -- Rob, 12:12:21 04/27/02 Sat

And I definitely don't always agree with Ebert either. He gave "The Cell" four stars, and I thought that film was awful, awful, awful...and he gave 1 1/2 stars to "Death to Smoochy," which I adored...But he is a good writer, and I do respect him (especially when he agrees with me lol) :o)

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Death To Smootchie only 1/2 stars?!?! What's wrong with Ebert? -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:40:56 04/27/02 Sat

and Mission Impossible 2 he gave three. That's REALLY messed up.

[> [> [> Re: With that said... -- Dichotomy, 15:37:42 04/27/02 Sat

Yee-ouch! I respectfully disagree with you, Rob (obviously I quite like the film). I think RLR's techniques were extremely effective in accomplishing what the director intended. While it may have appeared a "mess" I think that was the intention--to convey the extremity and urgency of Lola's wild attempts to help Manni. Even the music, which many viewers might not choose to listen to outside the movie, enhanced the movie's tone quite effectively and fit with what we do know of Lola herself (can't you see her at a Berlin club dancing to this?)

As for pretension, I don't think Twyker was trying to accomplish anything too lofty. He said in an interview "In asking the question 'What can happen in your life, what chances do you have?' I wanted also to ask the question 'What possibilities can there be in I found in filmmaking.�" Sounds to me like he was just having fun, but more important than the reason (whether or not things were "put in just for the sake of being flashy, modern, and MTV-ish" ) the end result was inventive and involving, to me anyway. I was perfectly happy to sit back and enjoy the wild ride, lofty ambitions or not.

An aside: I found this essay on �Run Lola Run� written by Steven F. Walker, Professor of Comparative Literature at Rutgers University. It begins: �Run Lola Run ... is a snappy, humorous, and smartly original youth-oriented film from Germany that through its mythic dimensions and archetypal resonance should prove a treat for young and Jungians alike.� (The entire essay can be read at http://www.cgjungpage.org/films/runlola.html) It�s interesting that what some have written off as empty entertainment for the MTV generation, others see as comparable to mythology. Sound familiar? Not that I thought of Orpheus� journey to the Underworld or Jungian active imagination when I watched RLR (nor do I think that�s what Twyker intended), but it�s interesting nevertheless.

BTW, I also liked Moulin Rouge, but it did take me a few minutes to get over the unusual techniques and just go with it. I think that�s the secret to enjoying Moulin Rouge: �Just go with it.� I never watched Natural Born Killers in its entirety because I tried watching it on video right after I my son was born, and it made me feel, for lack of a better word, �icky.� Probably hormones; I�ll have to give it another shot.Enjoyed Trainspotting, too.

Anyway, no hard feelings, really. As AngelVsAngelus said, it's probably a matter of personal tastes.

[> [> [> [> Re: With that said.. -- Rob, 16:56:45 04/27/02 Sat

To be honest, I think I really should watch RLR again someday. A great deal of my judgment could have been, and probably was, clouded by the fact that I saw it in an extremely boring film class last year. (That's not to say that the films were extremely boring. The professor though is a different story altogether lol) I really think I sounded way too harsh, enough to prompt a "ye-owch!" I actually didn't think it was a "mess." That's very overboard and was written when I was half asleep. No, I did not love it, and actually found myself much more easily buying into MR's world than this one, but I did admire a great deal of it. I still can't change my stance on the soundtrack, though! Those thumping techno-beats drove me slightly loony! :o)

Re: Nat'l Born Killers...I totally understand you being thrown off by the "ick" factor. In some sick way, it's the "ick" factor that intrigued me about the film. But some of it is definitely very, very ick, so I'd totally understand somebody having trouble watching it. Same goes for "Trainspotting." Although, if one is able to overlook, or at least not let their mind emphasize the gory details, there is a great deal of good to be found in those films, I think. But I may be a little less squeamish with the ickiness. :o)

Rob

[> [> [> [> Re: With that said.. -- Rob, 16:56:47 04/27/02 Sat

To be honest, I think I really should watch RLR again someday. A great deal of my judgment could have been, and probably was, clouded by the fact that I saw it in an extremely boring film class last year. (That's not to say that the films were extremely boring. The professor though is a different story altogether lol) I really think I sounded way too harsh, enough to prompt a "ye-owch!" I actually didn't think it was a "mess." That's very overboard and was written when I was half asleep. No, I did not love it, and actually found myself much more easily buying into MR's world than this one, but I did admire a great deal of it. I still can't change my stance on the soundtrack, though! Those thumping techno-beats drove me slightly loony! :o)

Re: Nat'l Born Killers...I totally understand you being thrown off by the "ick" factor. In some sick way, it's the "ick" factor that intrigued me about the film. But some of it is definitely very, very ick, so I'd totally understand somebody having trouble watching it. Same goes for "Trainspotting." Although, if one is able to overlook, or at least not let their mind emphasize the gory details, there is a great deal of good to be found in those films, I think. But I may be a little less squeamish with the ickiness. :o)

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> *scratches a turntable* See there's another difference :) -- AngelVSAngelus, 18:38:54 04/27/02 Sat

I'm down with some pulsing pounding techno beats :)

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 26th 2002 - with Guest Host *** Dichotomy *** (Yay!) -- Aquitaine, 10:34:56 04/27/02 Sat

Run Lola Run reminded me of every documentary or animated short sponsored by the National Film Board of Canada that I've seen. In short, it seemed experimental and provocative for the sake of being provocative. I enjoyed the frenetic pace and drafty feel of the film ('drafty' as in 'brouillon' and 'drafty' as in 'breezy'). I think it was successful in what it set out to do because it didn't get too thinky.

It reminded me of that famous 80s video by A-Ha more than anything else. Isn't that a sad, sad statement? LOL.

Hmm. A:tS can sometimes channel that type of energy. I'm thinking about those prophetic-preview type slash-edit transition bits they insert at random...

Finally, I'd venture to say that many films try to do what RLR does visually using only sound, to lesser or greater effect (eg The Red Violin).

Thanks for the review, Dichotomy.

- Aquitaine

[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - April 26th 2002 - with Guest Host *** Dichotomy *** (Yay!) -- mundusmundi, 15:53:38 04/27/02 Sat

Thanks, Dichotomy. I enjoyed RLR and forgot about it after a few minutes, but you've made me want to see it again. Do you know what the name of Twyker's second movie is, btw? Is it worth seeing?

Scorsese is the master of using camerawork to enhance the story. In Goodfellas, the sequence with Henry Hill drugged up, driving all over town while being chased by helicopters brilliantly uses camera and editing techniques to put us in his paranoid state of mind. On the other hand, I've never been a fan of DePalma's work. Except for Carlito's Way and a couple other good movies, he seems to rely on flashy techniques to conceal how threadbare his stories are. This was fine back in the 70's when he was content making neo-Hitchcockian thrillers, but in recent years it's left something to be desired.

[> [> More on Twyker -- Dichotomy, 10:14:38 04/28/02 Sun

I think this is actually his third or fourth movie, but second US release. It's called "The Princess and the Warrior" but I haven't yet seen it. Here's what Roger Ebert said about, though: "(It) is one astonishment after another. It uses coincidence with reckless abandon to argue that deep patterns in life connect some people. It uses thriller elements--not to thrill us, but to set up moral challenges for its characters. It is about a woman convinced she has met the one great love of her life, and a man convinced he is not that person. It is about a traffic accident, a bank robbery, an insane asylum, and it does not use any of those elements as they have been used before. Above all, it loves its characters too much to entrap them in a mediocre plot. The movie was written and directed by Tom Tykwer, from Germany, who had international success with "Run, Lola, Run," and now has made a deeper and more ambitious film."
It also stars Franka Potente.

Glad you mentioned it--I'm going to have to go out and rent it. Sounds good, yes?

[> Camera work, film reviews and a note to OnM -- matching mole, 05:37:35 04/28/02 Sun

Thanks for the review of RLR, Dichotomy. I've never seen it but I have been meaning to for some time. I've always been a big fan of slow, unobtrusive camera work. One of the most beautiful films I've ever seen was called 'Nostalgia' by a Russian director (Tartovsky?) who was living in exile in Italy during the cold war (the film was made in the 1970s or early 80s). It was set in a small, ancient Italian village and the camera moved achingly slowly over crumbling walls conveying both the sense of the alieness of the surroundings to the main character and his longing for his homeland.

The discussion about Roger Ebert above is quite a coincidence for me as I just saw two films at the Ebert Overlooked Films Festival yesterday (more about which in a separate post). Ebert is not my favourite film critic by any means but I think that he has the three essential qualities that make for a good reviewer - he is very interested in and knowledgeable about film, he is interested in a wide range of types of films, and he is relatively honest about his personal biases. I am less concerned with with a critic's disagreement or agreement with my personal opinion than in how well they justify their opinion. A really good review is one that is more interesting to read after you've seen the film than before it.

OnM's reviews fit that definition really well. I realized in the middle of the day that my early morning post yesterday left out one important thing. Although I didn' want to try and influence anyone to leave or stay I did want to say that OnM's departure would certainly be greatly missed.

[> [> Thanks, mm. With any luck, no one is going. Please read. -- OnM, 07:17:13 04/28/02 Sun

I am not going to go into any details, because things are still in flux behind the scenes, but I do want to convey that cooler heads are prevailing, and a great part of what we are working on is a means of preventing-- or at least minimizing-- such occurances in future.

It may take several days to a week, I don't know, the actual time frame is not important, but everyone involved has the welfare of the board and it's contributors as their highest concern. Tempers have cooled, and reason is returning.

I will be posting some thoughts specifically regarding the CMotW column sometime this evening, and will solicit comments to them.

In the meantime, I just want to say once again what a wonderful job all of the 'guest hosts' did during this last five weeks. I thank you all for your contributions, and hope this is something we can do again in future.

OnM

[> Time waits for no man - sometimes it sneaks up and grabs you by the throat. -- OnM, 20:36:27 04/28/02 Sun

Time has come today...

How are y'all living with multitasking? No, not the computer related kind, the lifestyle kind.

What brings this up is a real life dilemma, for myself and I suspect for many others. I am asking for your
input, and I also have a request regarding the Classic Movie of the Week column I put up here every
Friday night.

Several months ago, shortly after the 1 year anniversary column in early February, I first mentioned my
plan to do a series of �guest host� reviews written by other posters here at the board. In a �dialog� with my
slightly fictional alter ego, �The Evil Clone�, he remarked that the guest hosting bit was just a clever way
for me to get a little vacation from doing the CMotW for awhile.

Well, just like the pale blond leather-coated one, sometimes the Clone speaketh the truth. I love doing the
column, and most folks here seem to enjoy it and look forward to reading it. What you may not be aware
of is the time it takes to create the finished product, and therein lies the rub. Many of you already know
that the writing work I do is just a hobby interest, my day job and source of actual living income being the
service and installation of audio and video equipment. The company I work for has been around for many
years, over 40 in fact, but it is a very small company. The work load fluctuates as jobs come and go, with
some years down, some years up, most a mixture of both.

Since late last summer, things have been very up. Since late fall and early winter, things have been
extremely up. While this bodes well for the wallet, it bodes very unwell for my rapidly aging mind and
body. It also doesn�t bode well for the amount of free time I have to pursue my hobby interests. Thus, the
approximately 5-7 hours per week it takes for me to do the CMotW thang is becoming harder and harder
to accomodate. So, the idea to �guest host� the weekly flick pick was partly inspiration and partly
desperation, with the hopes that my work schedule might decline a bit and give me some breathing room.

On the good side, I ended up with some really marvelous guest contributions. On the bad side, it still hasn�t
been nearly enough. May is going to be hectic for me, and in particular if I don�t get my normal
Wednesday day off, I�m pretty well cooked. Even with the my role in the last five weeks reduced to that of
editor and technical factoids drudge, there were several weeks where the work was just barely completed
in time. Now, we will be back with new eps, and so the flicks need to be more Buffy and/or Angel relevant,
which means watching both shows, coming up with a thematically linked movie, and putting thoughts to
word processor.

So how can I put this? Help! I�m being multitasked into oblivion!

The time crunch has led to other difficulties, you see, one of which is that with the rapid growth of the
board I no longer have the time to read many entire threads, with results ranging from a growing stack of
unread printouts to some very embarrassing and serious faux pas on my part re: posted responses to
other�s threads.

Now, the two questions-- (the first is a multi-parter, but with a common theme):

1. How do you manage your time in the �real� world vs. your time in the virtual community here or
at other boards? Do you get to keep up with most or all of the threads here? Do you ever post without
reading an entire thread? Do you just lurk? If you post frequently, do you find yourself with enough time to
write your posts in exactly the manner you want them to be? Do you feel overworked in the rest of your
life? By now, you have the gist of what I�m after, so clue us all in. I�m sure I�m not the only slave to the
marketplace here!

2. Back to the CMotW. I am going to do my best to keep the column going, but if anyone else is willing to
jump in, please let me know. As I mentioned above, doing the column when new eps are airing is very
challenging, because of the need for Buffyverse thematic linkage and the very short prep time involved. If
you feel up to trying, go for it. You may e-mail me at objectsinmirror@mindspring.com or of course just
post a reply here.

Thanks!

[> [> Re: Time waits for no man - sometimes it sneaks up and grabs you by the throat. -- Marie, 01:49:13 04/29/02 Mon

Well, I've never made it a secret that dang work gets in the way of my keeping up with this board! That said, I rarely look in at weekends - too much to do, single parent 'n all. So I was pretty shocked to read some of the stuff here this morning. I don't have time to read all threads, but I do go into threads that are regular, like your Movie one (although I rarely input anything, I always read others' responses). I also tend to read more fully the posts of other regulars, such as Aquitaine, Rah, Rufus and others (oh, you know who you are). And if they're very long, as Age's sometimes are, I tend to skim, and then go back to the Archives when time allows, to read them in full. I also keep an eye out for people who don't contribute very often, but usually have something sensible to say (like Sol, or Masq herself).

Oh, and yes, I can spot a troll a mile off, so I never read the responses, they just get me mad!

And while I would love to offer my services to your movie column, the very idea curdles my whey!

M

p.s. I wasn't going to say anything, figuring if people feel they need to leave the board, then they should do what they feel have to to feel better. But please don't go! You guys have become family - look at the responses to dubdub's illness - and I hate to see all this, here. It's very upsetting. Very. I don't pretend to a learned mind, so I'm not putting it very well, I guess, but there you are. Can only say how I feel.

[> [> Re: Time waits for no man - sometimes it sneaks up and grabs you by the throat. -- Marie, 01:50:51 04/29/02 Mon

Well, I've never made it a secret that dang work gets in the way of my keeping up with this board! That said, I rarely look in at weekends - too much to do, single parent 'n all. So I was pretty shocked to read some of the stuff here this morning. I don't have time to read all threads, but I do go into threads that are regular, like your Movie one (although I rarely input anything, I always read others' responses). I also tend to read more fully the posts of other regulars, such as Aquitaine, Rah, Rufus and others (oh, you know who you are). And if they're very long, as Age's sometimes are, I tend to skim, and then go back to the Archives when time allows, to read them in full. I also keep an eye out for people who don't contribute very often, but usually have something sensible to say (like Sol, or Masq herself).

Oh, and yes, I can spot a troll a mile off, so I never read the responses, they just get me mad!

And while I would love to offer my services to your movie column, the very idea curdles my whey!

M

p.s. I wasn't going to say anything, figuring if people feel they need to leave the board, then they should do what they feel they have to to feel better. But please don't go! You guys have become family - look at the responses to dubdub's illness - and I hate to see all this, here. It's very upsetting. Very. I don't pretend to a learned mind, so I'm not putting it very well, I guess, but there you are. Can only say how I feel.

[> [> Re: Time waits for no man - sometimes it sneaks up and grabs you by the throat. -- matching mole, 05:11:51 04/29/02 Mon

I've wondered the same thing OnM - about some of the posters here who seem to have enormous amounts of time at their disposal to write essays one after the other, read multiple books and watch multiple movies every week. I guess I did more of that when I was younger but finding time is very difficult.

I don't have any children (I can't imagine how I would get anything not absolutely essential done if I did). However I do have a full time job and a house and a yard to take care of. My wife has a much more demanding job than I do (she's coming up for tenure in two years) and she has a bad back so I do the bulk of household tasks. Also to save money to justify my adventure holidays I've been doing so household rennovation which I'm not very good at so it takes lots of time. So my time for fun things (other than gardening which I also consider a fun thing - it just sets its own schedule) has been fairly limited. It has been weeks since I set out to edit my Buffy saga and send it to Liq and it remains undone.

Up until recently my job has not been very demanding so I've been posting mostly while at work (not to mention that I have an ethernet connection rather than a modem). For the next year I am going to be busier at work. So while I intend to keep posting I think my rate of doing so will be more like it has been recently rather than what it was in the winter.

On the up side I think I get more efficient when I get busier. And I really enjoyed my movie review writing experience. I would be really psyched to write a review of Paperhouse the film I mention in my thread above although I'm not sure what the point of writing a review of a film that my audience couldn't watch is. And I have at least one more film I'd like to review. Both would seem to have general Buffy connections. I'm not really sure I could do reviews that linked a film to a particular episode of BtVS on demand - that would seem to call for a greater knowledge of film and a better memory than I have. However if you were to suggest a film I could watch it and write a review comparing it to BtVS (or AtS which is an assignment I might actually enjoy more). So I would be willing to do one of those before the season ends - this week (with the caveat that I won't get to see BtVS until Wednesday or Thursday this week so AtS would definitely be better) or next week would be good, the following week (week of May 12) not so good.

[> [> [> Consider yourself considered! ;-) -- OnM, 06:49:03 04/29/02 Mon

Actually, A:tS might indeed serve as a good source of inspiration, because a lot of the themes playing out currently are broad enough-- duty, obligations to friends and/or family members, loyalty, the intention to do good only to have it suddenly twisted into something bad, balancing one's personal life with one's work obligations (hey!), revenge, etc. etc. Regardless of what happens this week or next, those themes would still be in play.

Think about those ideas, and see if any films you've seen come to mind. Make a potential list of possibilities, then after the episode airs, cull it down to one or two flicks, choose the one you think works best and or can write about the best.

(Uh-oh... giving my tricks away here. No matter, they certainly aren't copyrighted! ;-)

On BtVS, without giving away any spoilers, I think that vengeance is going to be a major player-- maybe in unexpected ways? -- in the next four weeks.

So, see what occurs on the show(s), e-mail me if you would like to make it happen.

Thanks! Anyone else interested, please jump in!

:-)

Current board | More April 2002