April 2004 posts


Previous April 2004  

More April 2004

Journey of mind to heart - Review of The Chosen (classic 1981 movie) and ATS 5.18 (vague spoilers) -- shadowkat, 10:09:47 04/26/04 Mon

Okay, I posted this on livejournal. And was hesistant to do it here, because I know this is OnM's turf and he does it so much better an more thoroughly than I do. But after reading some of the posts on soul metaphors and morality below, I felt it fit. It may possibly provide a different view on the whole thing. The Chosen is a film about choices, traditions, and navigating our way through them.Many of themes addressed in this old film reminded me
of themes currently addressed in this seasons Angel.

Spoilers for THE CHOSEN below. I pretty much reveal most of the plot of the film. Also Spoilers for a little of ATS 5.18, but pretty vague.

The Chosen
Based on the book by Chaim Potok
Film, written by Chaim Potok and Edwin Gordon, directed by Jeremy Paul Kagan

(Disclaimer: Iím not Jewish and have no knowledge of Hebrew and limited knowledge of Judaism. Also my theology studies, what little I had, date back about ten years. So I apologize in advance for any errors. What I know is taken directly from the movie I saw, which I saw once, this Saturday night, on PBS. Also this is the first time Iíve tried something like this, so it wonít be nearly as thorough as OnM. I donít have the movie on me and what you see is what I managed to clean from the one showing I saw and the internet. The reason Iím doing this ñ is several things mentioned in this story reminded me of the debate about souls and vampires going on on the board right now and about the Spike/Angel, Angel/Connor relationships. But instead of showing you how the relationships fit ñ I thought Iíd review the film, much as OnM does and draw a few conclusions. )

"A man is born into this world with only a tiny spark of goodness in him. The spark is God, it is the soul; the rest is ugliness and evil, a shell. The spark must be guarded like a treasure, it must be nurtured, it must be fanned into flame"(p. 263). Reb Saunders from The Chosen by Chaim Potok.

"A heart I need for a son, a soul I need for a son, compassion I want from my son, righteousness, mercy, strength to suffer and carry pain, that I want from my son, not a mind without a soul!" (p. 264). Reb Saunders, The Chosen by Chaim Potok.

The Hebrew word for Mind is apparently similar to the Hebrew word for King, it is also apparently the inverse of the Hebrew word for heart and fool.

The Chosen

Here is the review from The Wall Street Journal regarding the film and the book:
ìIt is the now-classic story of two fathers and two sons and the pressures on all of them to pursue the religion they share in the way that is best suited to each. And as the boys grow into young men, they discover in the other a lost spiritual brother, and a link to an unexplored world that neither had ever considered before. In effect, they exchange places, and find the peace that neither will ever retreat from again....î http://endeavor.med.nyu.edu/lit-med/lit-med-db/webdocs/webdescrips/potok1311-des-.html


And the description from Amazon.com:

ì Few stories offer more warmth, wisdom, or generosity than this tale of two boys, their fathers, their friendship, and the chaotic times in which they live. Though on the surface it explores religious faith--the intellectually committed as well as the passionately observant--the struggles addressed in The Chosen are familiar to families of all faiths and in all nations.

In 1940s Brooklyn, New York, an accident throws Reuven Malther and Danny Saunders together. Despite their differences (Reuven is a Modern Orthodox Jew with an intellectual, Zionist father; Danny is the brilliant son and rightful heir to a Hasidic rebbe), the young men form a deep, if unlikely, friendship. Together they negotiate adolescence, family conflicts, the crisis of faith engendered when Holocaust stories begin to emerge in the U.S., loss, love, and the journey to adulthood. The intellectual and spiritual clashes between fathers, between each son and his own father, and between the two young men, provide a unique backdrop for this exploration of fathers, sons, faith, loyalty, and, ultimately, the power of love.î

* * * * * * * *

While flipping channels on Saturday night, I landed on an old 1980s movie that I had never really sat down and watched. Oh, it had been shown before, but I had an aversion to Robby Benson in the 1980s and early 1990s, so skipped it. Mistake. This is a fascinating film about the relationship of two boys who are mirror reflections of each other. While the film takes place in 1940s Brooklyn and it is between the son of a Hasidic Jew and the son of a Non-Orthodox/Zionist, the tale can be appreciated by any religion and can involve two boys of any walk in life. The producer who obtained the rights to the book was Methodist. He was interested in the novel because it explored two different ways of looking at the same religion, yet tolerating both.

What struck me about the movie was how closely some of its themes paralleled themes in Angel The Series Season 5, especially the two lead characters, Danny and Reuven who in some ways remind me a great deal of Angel and Spike. Also the relationship between Danny and his father, reminded me of the relationship between Angel and his father, but even more so, the relationship between Angel and his son, Connor. The tale is a universal one ñ one about fathers and sons and it deals with a universal trope ñ the tale of the fool and the king, otherwise known as The Fisher King. A tale weíve seen discussed in numerous films, myths, fairy tales, and novels.

Good films contain a pivotal scene that through visual metaphor and dialogue perfectly describes the two lead characters, their relationship and their journey. In The Chosen, this scene appears approximately twenty minutes into the film ñ it takes place in a garden, a small backyard garden that has a wrought iron fence around it. Reuven is sitting on the ground, his hands in the earth, tending to the plants, wearing casual clothes. Danny is formally dressed in Hasidic attire, wears a hat, and is sitting on a ledge next to the fence. Danny is holding a book, while Reuven is reciting. Danny keeps checking Reuvenís recitation. Reuven attempts to memorize a Shakespearean speech, which I believe is the ìtomorrowî speech from Macbeth. The line emphasized in the speech is ìperchance to dreamî, which Reuven flubs repeatedly. The flub leads to a discussion of dreams, Dannyís obsession with the study of psychology, and finally a discussion of the difference between heart and mind.

Danny asks Reuven what the Hebrew word for King is. Reuven answers and Danny stresses that it starts with an ìmî and ends with an ìlî . Then he asks Reuven what the Hebrew word for Fool is. Danny stresses the word for Fool starts with anìlî and ends with an ìmî. Then Danny asks Reuven the word for heart and stresses that it has the same spelling as fool. The king, Danny tells Reuven, places his mind before his heart. The fool places his heart before his mind.

Early on, we learn about Dannyís superior mind. He possesses a photographic memory and total recall. (Similar actually to Angelís photographic memory detailed in Supersymmetry, S4 ATS, where Angel literally can remember the placement of everyone at a lecture.) At one point in the film, Reuven gives Danny a paper ñ the front page ñ within five minutes Danny has read and memorized everything on it, reciting it back to Danny without error. Reuven can barely remember Macbeth, he stumbles over the phrasing. (Similar in some ways to Spike who stumbles over bad poetry and canít remember the correct word.) When the boys first meet on a baseball field they are antagonists. Danny, in fact, injures Reuven severely with a baseball. He hits the ball, Reuven has pitched to him, at Reuvenís eye ñ Reuven wears glasses and a piece of glass ends up in his eye, which the doctors have to surgically remove. Through the first half of the film, Reuven wears an eye patch. Danny is described at the ball game as the best hitter in the league. Reuven is a pitcher, neither the best or the worst. Reuven just happens to enjoy the game. The ball game also tells us a great deal about these two boys ñ one, Reuven, attempts to communicate with Danny, is friendly, and pitches the ball, enjoys the game, sees it as a social outing, the other Danny, is reserved, hits balls and is interested in accomplishment.

In a series of scenes, the film proceeds to depict the boysí relationships with their fathers. Dannyís father, Reb Saunders played by Rod Steiger, raised Danny in silence. Yet, Reb is also very joyful. In one scene Danny and Reuven sit at a dinner table filled only with men, as Reb Saunders teaches, breaks bread, and chants joyfully over the meal. Another ñ at a wedding, shows Reb Saunders dancing. He is also shown playing chess with his youngest son and warmly tucking the boy in bed. Yet, he only speaks to Danny when someone else is present. When Reuven asks his father, Professor David Malter about this. Prof Malter responds it is an old way of raising a boy. And how lonely and isolated Danny must feel, desperate for a friend, someone to confide in. Reb Saunders is the leader of the Hasidic community, a great man, a religious man ñ who expects his son to work hard and follow his rules. Danny yearns for his fatherís approval, but does not want to follow in his fatherís footsteps ñ he does not want the destiny that his father has set out for him, becoming a ìrabbiî. (Angel similarly had an austere father, who raised him in silence. Only barking orders at him or disapproving of what he did. He felt that his father did not care for him. And his son Connor has a similar response to Angel, who is also silent, and expects Connor to be something similar to what he is, to follow in his path.) Danny would like to follow his own path, not follow his fatherís. But he does not know how to do this without losing his father. Dannyís family is also very large in comparison to Reuvenís. Reuven only has his father. Danny has a mother, a sister, a brother, and numerous relatives always around him.

Reuvenís father, Prof. David Malter, played by Maxmillian Schell, is a quiet man, barely sings, doesnít dance, and spends most of his time at a typewriter or studying in a library. He also teaches but in a school setting and in casual clothes. His relationship with Reuven is very nurturing, loving. He also does not appear to be well in most of the film. A shadow of sickness hangs over the man. He speaks to Reuven when they are alone. In one scene Reuven discusses cooking with his father and states how heíll at least be well-fed at the Saunders house, since Mrs. Saunders is a great cook. His father argues that heís just as good a cook as Mrs. Saunders. Another scene, when Reuven comes back late beaten up, his father offers to make him breakfast. Reuvenís father in some ways echoes Dannyís mother, heís more maternal, more nurturing. (Reminds me of William/Spikeís relationship with his mother ñ very nurturing, at times you donít know who is taking care of whom. One parent. No other family in evidence. And the parent is sickly.)

As the movie plays out the events of the time begin to affect and interfere with the two boys burgeoning friendship. As do their differences in culture and worldviews. The common factor in each of these conflicts is the nature of each boy. How they see each other, the world, and navigate their way through it. The time period is 1945, WWII has just ended and news releases on the Nazi death camps have just made the headlines. The main issue in the Jewish community is a Jewish State. The Hasidic Community is portrayed as joyful, but inclusive, and very traditional ñ while the Zionist community is also shown as joyful but open and non-traditional. The Hasidic feels like the territory of the head ñ we always see them around books, studying, the dances and chants are studied, there are boundaries drawn, while the Zionist community feels like the territory of the heart ñ we see them having co-ed dances, flirting and making out with girls, eating lunch, fighting for their cause.

In one scene, half-way through the movie, Dannyís mother notices Reuven flirting with Dannyís sister. She tells Danny who then proceeds to pull Reuven aside, informing him that in their culture marriages are arranged. His sisterís marriage was planned when she was six years of age. Reuven reacts emotionally to this news. How can you do this to her? Doesnít love factor in? Donít people have choices? How can you pre-plan everything? Danny shakes his head sagely and states, ìthatís the way it is. Iím only telling you this, because I donít want you to get hurt.î

Yet, Reuvenís influence convinces Danny to go to the more open University ìHirschî as opposed to the more conservative ìYeshivaî. Danny wants to study psychology and knows Yeshiva does not focus on this field. And it is Reuvenís father who provides Danny with different books, books outside of the Talmaud or his own faith. Reuven tells Danny to follow his heart ñ to study psychology if that is what he wants. Psychology is the study of the mind, but also the unconscious, which is the realm of the heart. Meanwhile Reuven begins to yearn to become a rabbi, the path Dannyís father pre-ordained for him. Rabbi is the realm of the heart ñ emphasizing with others needs and helping them, but also deals with intense study and knowledge, which is the realm of the mind.

The central conflict that arises appears on the surface to be between the boysí fathers. Yet, the fathers never meet. The war ends and Jews like Reuvenís father fight for a free Jewish state. A place where they can be safe from things like the Holocaust. The Hasidic community is vehemently against this. Because they believe God will show them to this land. They canít do it alone. The must wait for the Messiah to lead them. Their studies of the Talmaud determine this. The battle is one between heart and head. The Hasidic community fears that if they pursue a Jewish State outside of the dictates of their faith ñ their faith will not have a role in its development. The Non-Hasidic Jewish Community (Zionists) believe that if they donít pursue a Jewish State themselves, they risk another fate like the one experienced in the last World War. They feel they must make their own destiny, prophecies be damned. Since Reuvenís father takes an active role in this fight, his writings making the front page of the Newspaper, Dannyís father prohibits him from speaking to Reuven. Reuven cannot understand this. How can you just stop speaking to me, because we disagree? In the interim ñ Reuvenís father gets really sick and Reuven must take care of him and the UN ratifies and acknowledges the state of Israel. Because Israel is now a Jewish State, Dannyís father lifts his ban, and Danny attempts to re-enter Reuvenís life. Reuven tells him off at first. ìMy father was ill, I had to take care of him, where were you then? Where were you when I needed a friend?î

This may be the one major flaw in the film ñ since I did not quite understand why Reuven forgave Danny. Danny says Iím sorry then tells him, my father would like to speak to you and the next two scenes are between Reuven and his father, and then Danny, Reuven and Dannyís father. The second to last scene contains the quote at the top of this review.

"A heart I need for a son, a soul I need for a son, compassion I want from my son, righteousness, mercy, strength to suffer and carry pain, that I want from my son, not a mind without a soul!" Reb Saunders, (p. 263 of The Chosen, also stated in the film).

In it Dannyís father never says a word to Danny, he speaks to Reuven about Danny. He tells Reuven why he chose to raise Danny in silence and why he is choosing to allow Danny to pursue his own path now. (This scene reminds me a little of Angelís discussion with Vail about Connor in Origin, or Kateís fatherís discussion with Angel about Kate in The Prodigal ñ in both the father discusses the son, not with the son, but with someone else who is peripherally involved.) When Danny was a little boy he came to his father, proud and superior ñ he not only read a book his father gave him, he swallowed it. He could recite from memory every word in it. Yet, when his father asked him what he felt for the people in the stories or how he identified with their plight, Danny said he felt nothing. ìMaster of the Universe, what have you done ñ you have given me a son with a superior mind, but without a heart, without a soul ñ what use is he to me without these things.î So Reb Saunders decided to raise Danny as his father raised him, in silence, and in doing so, Danny began to understand what it was like to be isolated. What it was like to be alone. To be apart from others. And through this understanding, he was able to feel compassion for people in a similar plight. He could emphasize with them. He did not see himself as above them. Now he has a son who has a mind, heart and soul. Go forth into the world and make of it what you will, Reb Saunders tells Danny, but do it as a Jew. Remember who you are and feel for the world around you.

The last scene in the film is between Danny and Reuven. Danny has come to say goodbye to Reuven, he has chosen to switch schools from the Jewish College Hirsch to the Ivy League non-denominational school ñ Columbia. The last line in the movieÖis a tale told by Reb Saunders to Reuven about a father and son. The son is estranged from his father and wishes to be reunited, the father agrees, telling the son, he will meet him halfway.

The relationship between Danny and Reuven reminds me a great deal of Angel and Spike. One boy raised by a religious, stern father ñ the other by a nurturing mother type. One boy all about the head. The other boy all about the heart. Through their interactions with each other they come to terms with the part of themselves they havenít considered. And they also understand their fathers a little better. Through Reuven, Danny finds a way to reunite with his father and pursue a path that is not predestined or in his head, but lies in his heart. Through Danny, Reuven discovers a path he had not thought of that requires his head not his heart but which his heart can inform. (Reuven has decided to become a rabbi not unlike Dannyís father.)

The movie reminds us that without compassion for others, we remain isolated, alone. Also that our lives are not predestined or pre-ordained by the society in which we are born. We can decide our own future. We have choice. The title of the film refers both to the Jewish people ñ ìThe Chosenî by God (idea of Fate or Destiny) but also to the idea of Choice, that we have our chosen path. We need both heart and head to navigate our way through life. In Angel this season, the character of Angel is much like the Danny character, he feels superior in mind and strength, yet lacking in heart. He feels encouraged that he is ìChosenî as Danny is the Chosen one. But Danny realizes in the end that his own choices make him who he is, that he cannot follow the ones his father has pre-planned for him. He is not his fatherís puppet. Nor does his father wish this from him. He learns from his friend Reuven to follow his own path, and his father learns through Reuven to let his son go, so he will not lose him. My gut tells me this story may be the one that is being depicted on Angel this year ñ the decision to stop following someone elseís pre-arranged plan and make your path coupled with the ability to join heart and head, not letting one necessarily rule the other.
The Chosen was released as a 108-minute movie in 1982. It won the top award at the World Film Festival in Montreal. It opened simultaneously in one thousand theaters and reportedly raised fifty-million dollars (?!) for charitable institutions.
Producers: Edie and Ely Landau
Released by: Analysis Films and Twentieth Century-Fox
Director: Jeremy Paul Kagan
Screenplay: Edwin Gordon, Chaim Potok

Cast:
Reuven Malter: Barry Miller
Danny Saunders: Robby Benson
Professor David Malter: Maximilian Schell
Reb Isaac Saunders: Rod Steiger
Cameos by Ron Rifkin as the boyís baseball coach, and Chaim Potok as a teacher.

Thanks for reading. Any discussion is appreciated. Hope it made sense.

(This is not meant to take the place of OnM's Classic Movie of The Week in any way.)

sk

Replies:

[> Re: Journey of mind to heart - Review of The Chosen -- JM, 18:13:55 04/26/04 Mon

I read the book, but never saw the movie. And it was years ago, but I think there may have been an element in the book missing in the movie. In the book, the Reb at the end speaks of not his own similarities to Danny, but of how Danny is similar to the Rebís older brother. Also a genius, but one whose recognition of his superior gift gave him to assume a moral superiority and coldness to those around him. And itís this similarity of gifts and the Rebís fears about their possible emotional similarities that leads the him to bring Danny up in a life a silence and isolation. (Which I think the book implies has some roots in the religious tradition, but not in Dannyís fatherís own upbringing. It was a long, long time ago, but I think I remember Reuven father recognizing the tradition when Reuven describes it and disapproving of it, but also declining getting involved. [Oh, wait you got that, admit I scanned and went back and read later.)

I donít remember how the book explicates Danny and Reuvenís dÈtente other than illustrating that Danny was frequently a good person and a very difficult friend. But I do think the book implied at the very end that Dannyís father was successful in a very unorthodox and mutually painful endeavor. The book implies that Danny, although somewhat prickly, strange, and difficult, through his journey through isolation has become a more tolerant individual than Reuven, though good and kind, is himself. Reuven at the end of the story is still angry at Dannyís fatherís for his conduct while Danny seems to understand and accept, even though he leaves the faith/denomination.

As I said, it was very long ago and part of a very eclectic, fast paced three-week spring course, and Iím probably confusing it with the missionary movie and the country music movie we watched and getting the details all mixed up. But I thought that one of the points of the book was about letting go, of others, of oneís ability to will change, to the good or the bad. The impression I got from the book was that Dannyís father had been preparing from very early the likelihood that his son would leave the Hasidic community and was trying to give him the tools of compassion, despite his superior gifts, and self-sufficiency to find the reserves within himself when he left his community.

Once more, read long ago. Loved the book, but may have completely misunderstood it. But on an Angel note it does track. The only way Angel can effectively help and connect with Connor is by letting him go completely. Even as Stephen, Connor was saturated in Angle, what he had done to Holtz, what his origins meant. And once Angel got him back, every step forward resulted in two steps back in their relationship. It was only when Angel relinquished him completely that Connor could develop the strength and personality to accept himself and his world and could finally act toward his own father with compassion. Iím not thinking that ME is advocating for fathers to put their children up for adoption immediately, but maybe metaphorically illustrating a painful and difficult point. One theyíve shown the reverse of with Angel and Wesleyís paternal relationships and Holtz and Stephen. That to be a healthy man requires a point of separation, where you donít belong to them, your failures and successes are no longer theirs, and their path is not yours any longer. This severance needs to be made, the young man goes forth, bring with him the best of his father, rejecting the worst, to bear only the burden of his own failings and inevitable mistakes. With his fatherís blessing, and pride, and helpless to change it. Out of all the bad dad stories we finally get to see a glimpse of this so complicated dynamic bearing potentially positive fruit.

PS I am quite possibly insane in my interpretation of Chaim Potok. Nine years, no knowledge of Judaism, and my own personal agenda have probably warped any originally accurate recollection. (I mean, I read LotR multiple times and I still spent the whole three movies going ìOh, yeah, thatís what happens next.î)

PPS I am possibly insane in my interpretation of Angel. Perhaps it has nothing to do with my idea about fatherís and sons. Iím neither a father nor a son and further more donít have any sons or even brothers. Men are just weird mysteries, though pretty.

PPPS I think if there is a direct relation it may have to do with exceptionalism, in the fashion that Marti Noxon discussed with regard to Joss and, I think, ìPotentialî in Buffy S7. The idea of learning to live with the isolation and opportunities and obligations that exceptional gifts entail. Connorís gifts allowed him to survive Quortoth, but in the end they were what made him the more than usually dangerous psychopath he was becoming. (Buffy vs. Faith all over again.) In the end, Connor and Danny are able to embrace the best their gift enable and inoculated against the superiority and callousness they might have fallen into.

PPPPS Your right about any faith. The professors who assigned the book were Presbyterians (our chaplain and her husband). Fascinating people, the most intellectually curious religious I have ever met. If I ever convert the Presbyterians are at the top of the list.

PPPPPS Promise this is it. I was wondering whether Liamís father was really like Dannyís. He was vocally communicative, though there is evidence that he like Angel did at some point try to step back and try a somewhat hands-off approach. I must admit Iím rather more than the norm sympathetic to Liam Sr. Based on only one episode he seems more sympathetic than Wesís (at least through his own eyes bullying, and possibly abusive father). He seemed to me much like Angel became, a flawed, difficult, frustrated, quick-tempered man burdened with a flawed, difficult, quick-tempered son. Angel just got less time and more chances, and more choices. Incidentally agree that choice is a big theme. Angelís choice, Gunnís at W&H and suburbahell, Eveís (?), Harmonyís, Spikeís, definitely Cordy and Connorís, and Angelís worry about whether Fred made an informed choice (and possibly by extension Wes and Lorne). Wasnít that last seasonís theme, too?

[> [> To Respond Read This -- JM, 18:23:26 04/26/04 Mon

To respond to shadowkat you have to shorten the message subject field. Re:[Original Subject line] is exactly two letters over the system limit. Took me forever to figure out.

Shadowdkat -- Just wanted to help you get better respsonses than mine. I'm very out of practice posting. And I read the book very long ago. The parts where I challenge your interpretation are most lilkely completely wrong. I just remember it being an awesome book and couldn't let your fabu post be all lonely.

[> [> [> Thank you! And damn voy! -- s'kat, 20:21:46 04/26/04 Mon

To respond to shadowkat you have to shorten the message subject field. Re:[Original Subject line] is exactly two letters over the system limit. Took me forever to figure out.

Herein lies the reason for me not posting as much on voy boards as I did in the past. Not to mention how long it takes me to post the buggers - took me 30 minutes to get the thing to post this morning. Ugh. So thank you very much. It's hell when you spend so much effort and get 0 response. ;-)

And I read the book very long ago. The parts where I challenge your interpretation are most lilkely completely wrong. I just remember it being an awesome book and couldn't let your fabu post be all lonely.

Never read the book, but from Rob's description of it on my livejournal - I'm thinking the book and movie are very different in places. Rob describes the book as spending a large amount of time on a baseball game, describing it in minute detail. The movie spent five minutes on it - just long enough to establish the animosity between the two boys in the beginning. Also from Chaim Potok's interviews I read online, the book goes into far greater detail regarding the customs of the two religions and the two boys fathers. The first quote I use about "souls" isn't really in the movie, I certainly don't remember it. But I liked it.

The movie I saw two days ago. And it focuses far more on the relationship between Danny and Reuven, is *completely* in Reuven's point of view, and far less on the fathers.
(I get the feeling the book focused on the father/son relations a bit more.)

If you didn't like the book? I highly recommend the movie.
OR if you did? Still recommend it. The movie is well made and gripping in places. It's also one of Robby Benson's best performances. Maxmillian Schnell is underused however.

[> [> Thanks for this, and I don't think we disagree that much ;-) -- s'kat, 21:16:20 04/26/04 Mon

The difficulty of adapting books to movies is something always changes in the translation. It's bound too. Since they are after all two different mediums. A book may take twenty pages to describe two characters, while in a movie you can do it in the space of five seconds, merely with costumes, casting, setting, and showing them doing certain things. Having not read the book - I don't know if the scene in the garden, I describe from the movie, is used.

That said. Your take that one of the theme's is about Fathers letting go of their sons - is correct. It's in the movie as well. I think I hit on it, albeit briefly. (I was more interested in the point about finding your heart, yet also listening to your head, which in the film version is repeatedly emphasized.)

I donít remember how the book explicates Danny and Reuvenís dÈtente other than illustrating that Danny was frequently a good person and a very difficult friend. But I do think the book implied at the very end that Dannyís father was successful in a very unorthodox and mutually painful endeavor. The book implies that Danny, although somewhat prickly, strange, and difficult, through his journey through isolation has become a more tolerant individual than Reuven, though good and kind, is himself. Reuven at the end of the story is still angry at Dannyís fatherís for his conduct while Danny seems to understand and accept, even though he leaves the faith/denomination.

The movie is vague on this point. Reuven is angrier at the end, but Reuven has reason to be - his father suffered a stroke and Danny could care less and never showed him *any* compassion. (It's a flaw in the film actually.) Also we watch Reuven through the film taking care of his father, working for his father's cause - all Danny appears to be doing is staying distant and studying.

However - there is, like I stated, a huge point made in the final two scenes about Reb Saunders letting his son go. When Reuven asks his friend if he's still talking to his father, now that he's removed his locks and beard and no longer dresses in the old ways, Danny states - every day.
Since we remain firmly in Reuven's point of view - we never really grasp this transistion real well. Oh we get glimspes of Reb Saunders seeing Danny's desires and finally coming to grips with them. But it makes sense that Reuven doesn't see them. Also Reuven's anger at Danny's father in the film version has very little to do with Danny, and a lot to do with Reuven. Reb Saunders forbids Danny to be friends with Reuven when he needs Danny most - his father gets ill. He also forbids Reuven from seeing Danny's sister due to the pre-arranged marriage. Reuven's anger stems from his heart, his desires. Danny's views are all "mind". He doesn't really understand Reuven. He isn't really tolerant of Reuven's ways although he does appear to envy them. There's a lonliness in Danny. A feeling of superiority which does come across - making it clear that Reb Saunders parenting style did work and was necessary. In some ways, Reuven's emotions frighten Danny and confuse him - early on, Danny is confused by Reuven's anger at him for the injury as well as his own anger at Reuven. He states in the hospital when he meets Reuven for the first time to apologize for hitting him in the eye with a baseball - "I wanted to hurt you. You made me so angry. I don't understand why." Reuven rolls his eyes and tells him to go away. Reuven understands his emotions, Danny is so cut off from his (at least in the film version) that he reaches towards psychology to grasp them. But it is in an odd way through his relationship with Reuven that he begins to grasp his emotions and becomes connected to them, connected enough that in the second to last scene - Reb Saunders speaks to Danny through Reuven and throughout his speech Danny is in tears while Reuven remains stoic. It's the counter to other scenes with Reuven and Danny, where Reuven is usually in tears or showing pain and Danny is stoic. In this scene, we finally, finally, see Danny exhibit emotion. And at the end of it, he embraces his father for the first time. It's the climatic point of the film.

The last scene of the film - is Danny telling Reuven he's come to grips with who he is, what he wants, and his family.
Complete, he can now move on to the next stage.

But on an Angel note it does track. The only way Angel can effectively help and connect with Connor is by letting him go completely. Even as Stephen, Connor was saturated in Angle, what he had done to Holtz, what his origins meant. And once Angel got him back, every step forward resulted in two steps back in their relationship. It was only when Angel relinquished him completely that Connor could develop the strength and personality to accept himself and his world and could finally act toward his own father with compassion

Here, we agree. (Although I still have *major* issues with Angel on how he accomplished this but that's another debate.) I think a comparison between Danny/Reb Saunders and Angel/Connor can be drawn here. Angel does seem remote to his son at times. He wants to instill compassion in the boy, but isn't sure how. The boy is *so* messed up. And he is only making it worse. His solution is to let the boy go.
When the boy returns, finds out who he is, he makes the same choice Danny does in a way - he follows his heart and head combined.

He was vocally communicative, though there is evidence that he like Angel did at some point try to step back and try a somewhat hands-off approach. I must admit Iím rather more than the norm sympathetic to Liam Sr. Based on only one episode he seems more sympathetic than Wesís (at least through his own eyes bullying, and possibly abusive father). He seemed to me much like Angel became, a flawed, difficult, frustrated, quick-tempered man burdened with a flawed, difficult, quick-tempered son. Angel just got less time and more chances, and more choices. Incidentally agree that choice is a big theme. Angelís choice, Gunnís at W&H and suburbahell, Eveís (?), Harmonyís, Spikeís, definitely Cordy and Connorís, and Angelís worry about whether Fred made an informed choice (and possibly by extension Wes and Lorne). Wasnít that last seasonís theme, too?

Heh. I'm pretty sure the only person who made an informed choice in Home was Angel. The last line Angel states to his friends is and I quote: "I made an *executive* decision, we're joining." In short doesn't matter what they thought.
Oh and he shifted reality as everyone knew it. Not to mention made a deal with the devil. Thought he could do good without the devil noticing or stopping him ( a bit of hubris there). All just to save one *not very nice/somewhat psychotic* kid. Uh-Oh. Bad Karma. Now we get to watch the whole deal unravel... (Like I said I have issues with how Angel went about saving Connor, but something tells me I'm supposed to..)

Agree with you on Liam's dad. You're not alone there. I never saw Liam's dad as that bad. Liam was a pain. He womanized. Got maids pregnant. Drank. And didn't work.
Connor, in some ways, was more productive. Liam's Dad does however remind me of Reb Saunders - religious, attempting to be stern. In fact when Liam leaves and accuses the old man of being in his way. His father states: "I was never in your way, boy." Lots of viewers have a tendency to read this in the negative, I saw it more positively - partly because Liam's father is the last to leave his grave site and the note is "beloved son". Also the actor playing the father looks genuinely pained. It's tragic when Angelus returns to kill the father and the rest of the family. A tragedy that re-occurs three times in Angel/Liam's life.
1. Drusilla - he destroys her family
2. Holtz - destroys Holtz's
3. Angel's family - destroyed by ironically and inadvertently by his son, Connor

All three are tragic. Each one informs the next. Drusilla after all bites Darla, re-siring her. Holtz kidnaps and tortures Connor turning him into a killer like Angelus.
Angel is constantly finding himself face to face with what he did to his own father ages ago. It's a tragic loop. That never ends. If you think about it what Angelus does to Giles in Passion is another echo of that old crime - the set up very similar to what Angelus did to his own family and to Holtz's. Over and over, the vampire is eternally doomed to repeat the act that informs the man he once was - a hell of his own making. I'm hoping this year he breaks the cycle.

Thanks for the response. Enjoyed your take.

sk

[> [> [> What a fascinating and telling comparison. -- Arethusa, 08:48:07 04/27/04 Tue

The tragedy of Liam's father is that you can see how much he wanted to make his son a good person, how hard he tried, but how miserably he failed because of his methods, and especially his inability to show Liam that he did what he did out of love. And so like in the Snow Queen, Liam Sr. stabbed Liam in the heart with a shard of glass, freezing his ability to understand and emphesize with others.

There was a story in the news a while back about a little schoolgirl who fell on her pencil, stabbing herself in the heart. The teacher didn't take it out because she knew the child would bleed to death if the hole in her heart was opened by the removal of the pencil. I think Angel is afraid he'll bleed to death if he takes the shard out of his heart and lets himself feel again.

Angel is learning that making decisions without listening to his heart can make him forget the emotional cost of what he does, to himself and others. Angel can be as much puppet master as puppet, even though he knows Pinnocchio can't be a real boy until he no longer has strings. Pinnocchio mistreated his father and lied and stole because he was unable to feel empathy, and suffered the consequences. It wasn't until after he was hanged and the Blue Fairy took mercy on him that he was able to start to feel for others. (There's a whole essay to be written on Pinnocchio and Angel, isn't there? :))

[> [> [> [> And I'm also getting a "A Christmas Carol" (Spoilers for AtS) -- Arethusa, 08:56:31 04/27/04 Tue

vibe, especially with The Ghost of Mistakes Past (or maybe Present), played by Connor.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: And I'm also getting a "A Christmas Carol" (Spoilers for AtS) -- JM, 20:07:33 04/27/04 Tue

Actually, if Connor instead is Scrooge, then his memories, because he didn't loose the old ones, become cautionary tales of the road once, but no longer taken. I really like that idea. It helps explain their efficacy.

Wish I could concur Pinocchio, but I only know the Disney version. Which I remember as being creepy and surreal. As I did Alice in Wonderland. Did Disney go through a surrealism phase?

All the blue fairy stuff in Angel's dream would probably have made more sense if I knew the original huh?

[> [> [> [> Re: What a fascinating and telling comparison. -- s'kat, 12:17:30 04/27/04 Tue

The tragedy of Liam's father is that you can see how much he wanted to make his son a good person, how hard he tried, but how miserably he failed because of his methods, and especially his inability to show Liam that he did what he did out of love. And so like in the Snow Queen, Liam Sr. stabbed Liam in the heart with a shard of glass, freezing his ability to understand and emphesize with others.

The Snow Queen and The Christmas Carol that you cite below use the King/Fool trope. Or rather the idea of the wounded king who can no longer feel and sees the world as a bitter, horrible place, and is unconsolable. Along comes the fool who shows him things, hits at his heart, and he is healed. Often in these stories the hero is pierced with a piece of glass, a spear, or bitterness.

(Should make a confession - my favorite trope is The Fisher King.)


There was a story in the news a while back about a little schoolgirl who fell on her pencil, stabbing herself in the heart. The teacher didn't take it out because she knew the child would bleed to death if the hole in her heart was opened by the removal of the pencil. I think Angel is afraid he'll bleed to death if he takes the shard out of his heart and lets himself feel again.

I think this is true about Angel. Just as you state above, Angel is frozen, outside the emotion. It's a metaphor repeated throughout the series from Doyle's voice-over in City Of to Origin. They do it both with dialogue and visual technigues. Note how Angel is always looking through windows at people, always outside, looking in, like a voyeur, watching. Even when they are together, he's not really there - there's one wonderful scene with the AI team treating themselves in a restaurant somewhere in S2 or S3, and the camera circles to the mirrored glass of the restaurant and you see everyone but Angel. The image is followed up in S4 Home, where everyone par-takes of the feast, eating, but Angel. Breaking bread with one another is a sign of sharing love and compassion in some cultures.
Angel is continuously shown as being cut-off from things.
At the top of WR&H, surrounded by glass that lets in light but not the harmful rays. I think he'd let himself feel a bit when Connor was born, just a little bit - then Connor got snatched. When Connor returned and he thought he was getting both Connor and Cordy, he did again - and once again thrown to the sea. (So he does have reason. And it's clearly *not* just about being frozen...)

Angel is learning that making decisions without listening to his heart can make him forget the emotional cost of what he does, to himself and others. Angel can be as much puppet master as puppet, even though he knows Pinnocchio can't be a real boy until he no longer has strings. Pinnocchio mistreated his father and lied and stole because he was unable to feel empathy, and suffered the consequences. It wasn't until after he was hanged and the Blue Fairy took mercy on him that he was able to start to feel for others. (There's a whole essay to be written on Pinnocchio and Angel, isn't there? :))

Angel is a lot like Pinnoccio in the way that he is oblivious to anything *outside* of himself. (Note he had no idea about Fred and Wes.) He sees himself as the dominant player and the most important (which is a snarky comment by ME on the whole "lead character in the title" series - they sort of did the same thing on Buffy). And with that comes a great deal of "hubris" - I can control WR&H from within. He also likes the quick fix - as did Pinnoccio. (Gets them both in trouble). And he has a tendency to rely on PTB/SP and prophecies which in a sense are puppeteers pulling his strings. Again - this reminds me a lot of Danny in The Chosen, who also tends to focus more on himself, lets his father pull his strings, and goes by prophecy. His relationship with Reuven to some extent and his lonliness eventually forces him out of himself to a new path. (Not that Reuven wasn't somewhat focused on himself, but it was different somehow.) All of which goes back to the wounded king in the Tale of The Fisher King - who is unable to touch others or the grail. (The movie with Robin Williams and Jeff Bridges illustrates it...the world-weary bitter man who is moved by a fool.)

[> [> [> Re: Thanks for this, and I don't think we disagree that much ;-) -- It Started Out on Topic, I Swear, 19:44:30 04/27/04 Tue

PS I'm moving it to the top because I didn't stay on topic. I found the book a profoundly moving experience. I would be very intersted to find the movie. I'll be on the lookout. Movies are always a different animal, the medium is just too different. But the things you describe seem emotionally correct to the book. Like I said, I think Danny was difficult even in the book. It was a combination of his personality type and the culture clash between the boys. Thanks so much for letting me know the movie is out there.

I am pretty sure that ME wasn't trying to be prescriptive, sure hope not. (I thought that Cordelia spoke for the writers when she called the memory extraction "rape" a not un-strong word, as they well know.)

I have to believe that the storyline was mostly about getting Angel believably to the point where he would make the deal with the devil. And then let the hijinks ensue. This season has been mostly been about team Angel, and karmicly they seem to be paying a big price for Connor°¶s salvation. Angel's ennui and disconnectedness, Lorne's depression (full blown now, but hinted at before), Fred's death and the destruction of her soul, possibly the loss of Wes's sanity, certainly of his happiness, hope, health, and sobriety, Gunn's permanently burdened conscience. Plus the possibility that they are actively abetting THE apocalypse.

I agree about the lack of agency. I just hedged with the language because there doesn't seem to be complete audience consensus about who Angel brought with him and who were going to sign of their own accord anyway. Except Fred, dramatically appropriate, she clearly seemed disinclined to accept the offer, though tempted and curious. Gunn just as clearly had already accepted the offer. Though I do wonder if he would have made the trade in "Smile Time" if he were able to remember the consequences of Wes's deal (as far as he ever knew) with Holtz. Wes and Lorne were more ambiguously presented. Lorne appeared to be positively inclined, Wes not inclined, by my impression and the fact that he didn't seem remotely interested in any of the temptations and fully focused on the save-Lilah mission. Whose fate was a cautionary tale that needed few words, "They wouldn't be eternal if they consumed anything." I thought "Unleashed" hinted at Wes maybe subconsciously wondering why he was at W&H when the only payoff he could identified was a lovely pen, which Angel proceeded to destroy : )

I imagine the results of the mind-wipe will turn out to be the same as their tenure at W&H: some positive results, many negative. For all the Ninas and Timmys and wacked Slayers, there are the piles of dead nuns and other criminals abetted. Connor's apparently saved, but Fred's dead (someone else's only child). Lorne was once a much happier Host. Gunn may well be damned, certainly feeling like it. It's unclear whether Wes will survive the damage he's sustained. The torrent of memories couldn't have come at a worse time. Maybe he'll be fine, his stubborn resilience has surprised before, but the episode made a point at the very beginning, that at least as far as Angel is concerned, Wes hasn't arrived at anything resembling a healthy coping mechanism for the reality of Fred's death. I can't imagine Angel being rather horrid for any other reason than he's horribly worried and frustrated when it comes to Wes.

Which is so sad, because there was a point early mid-season three when it seemed obvious that these people were so lucky to have found one another. Cordelia is such a hero, Wes is so much more than he once seemed, Fred's not living alone in a demon dimension, Gunn's much more likely to recover from staking his sister, Angel's connected to humanity. Now look at them. It's hard not to suspect they might have better off never meeting, any of them. That's tragedy. Now make it better ME, you have four eps.

I do think that it's interesting, in a dramatic karmic scales kind of way that it was apparently Wes who of the three forced to remember was the mostly negatively impacted. It just seems, to me, at least to level the moral playing field between Angel and Wes. Wes hurt Angel, not intentionally, but irreparably, nevertheless. Now Angel has done the same. I thought season three and four made it clear there could be no atonement. There was no grand gesture, like Gunn°¶s choice to stay in the penalty box. Whatever Wes could have done, could have sacrificed, Connor's childhood was still stolen and Connor fatally damaged. It seems that the writers, maybe in the service of tying up loose ends, balanced the scales finally. Ironically, Wes, trying to save Angel and Connor, destroyed them. But not giving a damn about Connor and trying to punish Angel, he actually saved them. Both saved Connor spiritually and bodily, by restoring the person who Angel annihilated in "Home" (the father will kill the son) and giving him what he needed to survive Sahjahn. And only a restored, not facsimile, Connor can resolve his relationship with Angel.

(Of course I could be way off on this one. It struck me watching that dramatically Wes deserved to suffer worst for breaking the Orlon window. To my recollection it°¶s the vilest and most hateful action the character has ever taken. He didn't believe that breaking the window would restore Fred, he just didn't believe she wasn't the price, known or not. "I can't anymore." He broke it because he hated Angel right then and wanted to punish him, and couldn't care less the effect on Connor. Though granted he didn't have the information to know that he could be hurting him. He knew all he needed to, it would hurt Angel. We've seen Wes do wrong, make mistakes, and deliberately do some very dark things: attacking Lorne, kidnapping Connor, cloistering Justine, helping Fred banish Seidel, torturing the junkie, drugging Faith, shooting his father, stabbing Gunn, and executing Knox, but this is the first time this very biased viewer was at the very least not empathetic to him. I was on Angel and Connor°¶s side this time. I was surprised by my reaction. I still love him best, but I found myself approving that Wes was apparently suffering the most from the return of the memories. Hmm.... apparently I'm quite the bitch.)

(Oops, I think I remember one of the reasons I stopped posting. I'm apparently incapable of not turning all threads to things Wes. And also too corrupt to delete and find a better home. Nothing to see here people.)

[> [> [> [> Umm... Author was supposed to be JM -- Another Reason I don't post often, duh, 19:46:14 04/27/04 Tue


[> [> [> [> Re: Thanks for this, and I don't think we disagree that much ;-) -- s'kat, 21:51:57 04/27/04 Tue

Oddly, I was more sympathetic to Wes in this episode than Angel. Wes knew nothing about the Orlon Window except that it would uncover Angel's lies. He *knew* Angel had been lying to them for months. That the secrets lay in that window. He *did NoT* know for certain that it wouldn't bring back Fred. You are after all in Angel's pov in this episode. But Angel has given Wes *no* information. Wes had to uncover it for himself. Angel's lies finally caught up with him - lies always do.

No, I don't believe Wes broke the Window to hurt Angel - this is *not* a similar scene to Angel's attempt to murder Wesely in Forgiving nor Wes's stabbing of Gunn in Shells.
Wes shattered it to learn the truth. He no longer trusted anything that came out of Angel's mouth. He no longer trusted anything in his world. If I were Wes? I would have shattered it too.

My sympathy was *more* with Wesley here. I think Angel got what he brought on himself. A bit like Pinnoccio actually. (But this could be a subjective thing, since I've always seen Angel as more of an anti-hero than a hero and the series as very noir in tone.)To me, Angel has choices.
He had a choice in Home. And he had a choice in Origin.
He failed both times. That choice? Was to inform his friends. It's the same mistake Wes ironically makes in Sleep Tight. Ironic that Angel and Gunn to some extent make the same mistakes in judgement Wesely does and pays just as dearly for them. (Remember in Shells, Wes says the same thing to Gunn that Gunn more or less said to Wes, just as Wes says the same thing to Angel that Angel would say to Wes - which is "why all the lies".) What it comes down to is trust after all.

None of the characters *trust* each other. And *trust* is an extreemly important thing.

[> [> [> Actually OT about Chosen -- JM, 21:37:31 04/27/04 Tue

I just remember that one of the things that I thought the book addresses (though it might have been my imagination) is the topic of "tolerance." Or the way that I understand it.

We, at least Americans [no insult meant to any Canadians or others, I just don't know non-American political language as well], use the same term to apply to two different and not entirely compatible ways. Tolerant can mean intellectually humble, pertaining to nobly keeping an open mind. To recognizing that multiple traditions might have different glimpses of slices of the truth, and that what you understand today as the truth might indeed change as you learn more.

Tolerance also can mean acknowledging another's liberating freedom to hold what you are sure are wrong opinions. To respect their right to differ and to compassionately and empathetically understand how they might hold those wrong opinions.

When I read the novel I understood that Reuven embodied the first and Danny embodied the second.
Marc Blucas in new film on DVD -- Antigone, 11:00:30 04/26/04 Mon

Just rented "Prey for Rock N' Roll" on DVD with Gina Gershon. Marc Blucas has an interesting role in it. His character's name is "Animal" (dont't laugh!) and well, he also spends some time with his shirt off ('cause we need to see all the cool tatoos of course!) ;-) The movie is kinda cliche-ish and a bit silly but I do recommend it to fans of Marc. It's nice to see him take on a prominent role against type. The guy does have a lot of charisma on screen.

Replies:

[> Re: Marc Blucas in new film on DVD -- Cheryl, 13:06:00 04/26/04 Mon

I agree. I rented it when it first came out, although it's not the type of movie I'd typically watch and only saw it because he's in it. He did a great job and it was definitely a departure from the types of roles he's done before.

[> [> Re: Marc Blucas in new film on DVD (spoilers for "Prey for R N' Roll") -- Antigone, 19:02:12 04/26/04 Mon

(no spoilers regarding major twists and turns or the ending; just general remarks re the characters, location and the story. General negative review, except for our guy Marc--don't read if you want to watch the movie "afresh").

Thanks for the support! Actually it IS the kind of movie I would typically watch. I imagined a gritty, realist, dark indie movie about "real" independent bands in LA and women who rock. I did not expect a silly, melodramatic, full of cliches, "let's make sure they get our point" romantic comedy/over-the-top drama. I thought Gina Gershon did a decent job in her portrayal and her singing but somehow I did not believe in her character. She was too restrained; the clothes and tatoos felt like "a costume" she was wearing. Also, her character's a bit naive for someone who supposedly has been "doing this" for 20 years and waaay too preoccupied by her looks for a rocker. I know she lives in LA but still-- Age IS an issue in rock, sure, but really not the main one (if anything, I think "looks" are more crucial than age in rock--and Gina Gershon looks damn good on stage!) Mention the "age preoccupation" in passing but don't make it the character's main focus in her growth process. It takes away from all the more interesting issues in the movie--like being a female in a male-dominated world or chosing to be poor and follow one's art (and heart!) over having health insurance. How many times did she need to repeat her age throughout the movie?! [g]You would think that after 20 years Gina's character would have wisened up and managed her band a little more efficiently! I know plenty of independent bands in LA who have good promoters, self-produce their records, play clubs, don't necessarily want to "hit it big" to be on MTV and, although they are FAR from rich, they seem smart enough about money and promotion (at least they all have a web site, message board and "street team" or basic promotional system based on a core of fans, which this band does not even seem to have--all they seem to express is mockery for the only girl that comes up to them and tries to tell them--if only clumsily--her admiration. You never feel the true fan/band connection). For that matter, I found all the characters a bit one-dimensional and archetypal... The drugged-up trust baby; the abused lesbian; the understanding mom; the untalented student; the Evil boyfriend; the sleezy record label; etc. It felt all very safe and superficial, with unrelated scenes kinda "stitched up" together without much flow... All the side plot-lines just distracted from what could have been a really interesting, original look at a world we have not seen very much previously: the world of independent rock bands in LA, esp. female bands.


But don't let this negative ramble disctract you: Marc Blucas is still great in it!! I found myself only caring about the story when he was on screen ... Now I'm imagining a whole other movie where the story would have been focused on him discovering this underground world of LA clubs and rock bands and falling in love with the weird and fascinating artist that is Gina's character. Missed opportunity!!
Angel Season 2 -- ghady, 12:19:24 04/26/04 Mon

WOW! I mean WOW! There is not ONE bad episode in this season. I was SHOCKED!!! Seriously! SHOCKED beyond words.
Anyway, a few comments:
1) In Blood Money, someone asks one of the actors at Anne's charity event what the deal is with her character turning gay. They said something about the ratings. Is that a reference to Willow?
2) In a flashback, Dru tells Darla "I could be your mummy." Forshadowing something a 100 years or so before it happened, is it?
3)Cordy's blond hair is ugly. I want her hair back to the old LONG hair!!!
4) This is abt Buffy: why was Amber Benson only mentioned in the opening credits thingy in the episode Entropy? Why not in S5 or at the begining of S6 at least? Money issues?

Replies:

[> Season 2!!! -- Masq, 12:43:18 04/26/04 Mon

I love all the seasons of Angel, with 3 being my personal favorite, but Season 2 rocked like a rocking thing. I became a die-hard Angel/Darla 'shipper that season.

Some answers:

(1) Yes, I think that was a writer in-joke about Willow.
(2) ME loves foreshadowing. Never take anything they say lightly.
(3) *Oy*. Cordelia. *Oy*. Be careful what you wish for.
(4) Because Joss is evil and has a cruel sense of humor.

Other highlights of season 2:

(1) The episode "Darla": companion piece to "Fool For Love". What a night of television that was.
(2) Gray!Noirish!Angel: I snarl, I smoke and I let lawyers die!
(3) Reprise/Epiphany: ME has had many paired episodes, especially on "Angel" that are pivotal and affecting. This pair was a gut-wrencher. And philosophical, too!
(4) The Pylea arc: yeah or nay? At the time, it threw me for a loop. I was expecting a climax to the "Darla" story line, and instead she faded away and we got four episodes in a semi-lame hell dimension with Joss as dancin' Numfar, Lorne's brother. Don't mind it in retrospect, but at the time, confusing.

[> [> Re: Season 2!!! -- Cheryl, 13:12:40 04/26/04 Mon

Season 2 is my favorite season with season 5 becoming a very close second. I loved all the Angel/Darla and any episode with Lindsey. Especially loved Dead End and Lindsey singing (which prompted to go online immediately to see if CK had anything out there, which, thank goodness, he did). Also loved Disharmony. And was happy to see Anne - now well adjusted and helping people (Still bugs me though that she didn't recognize Angel. Oh well.)

And how gut wrenching for the gang to walk back into the hotel after Pylea, all happy and everything, only to find Willow sitting there waiting to give Angel the worst news possible?

[> [> Re: Season 2!!! -- Mighty Mouse, 18:05:25 04/26/04 Mon

Actually, as noted in I think the Season Three DVDs, the reasoning behind the Pylea arc (somewhat, anyway) was that Julie Benz had other commitments, and couldn't finish out the season with the Darla arc. Considering Season Three, I think it all worked out. :-)

[> [> [> Re: Season 2!!! -- Masq, 20:11:31 04/26/04 Mon

Considering Season Three, I think it all worked out. :-)

I have absolutely NO complaints!
ATPo Road Trip -- LittleBit, 18:40:30 04/26/04 Mon

Recently I had the pleasure of a road trip with Random to a Buffy convention in New Jersey which included several ATPo mini-meets.

Stopping first in Toronto for a couple nights, we got together with Pony, Scroll and WolfHowl3, spending the evening in the bar at the hotel where we talked about Buffy, Angel, ATPo and stuff. The next day we did a little bookshopping and walking in downtown Toronto with Scroll. I like spending time with Scroll and Ran.

From there we went to New Jersey where we met up with Rob and his cousin Rachel. We learned that Rob is really StalkerRob when they found themselves on the elevator with Nick Brendan (who is slimmed down to early Xander) and followed him off the elevator, but had the sense not to follow him to his room. Which was just as well, since they'd gotten off on the wrong floor!!

After an overnight stop in Philadelphia, we went on to Lancaster, PA. where we had lunch and spent an enjoyable afternoon with OnM. Yes, people, that's a photo of the Evil Clone himself. With a deep-thinker look that rivals d'Herblay's.

And as a result of these mini-meets and a few others the Existential Scooby wallpaper has now been updated including the elusive OnM and Rufus!

Replies:

[> Phoenix Mini-Meet -- LittleBit, 18:43:32 04/26/04 Mon

When I was visiting in-laws in the Phoenix area I had the pleaure of a lunch date with a couple of ATPoBtVS-AtS Discussion Board posters, Cheryl and . We met up at Barnes & Noble (at the Buffy section, of course) then walked over to Uncle Sam's for pizza and conversation. (And Thanks, again, to CW for treating).

[> [> Anyone in Philly area -- Seven, 19:29:04 04/26/04 Mon

Hey, everyone.

A friend and I have put a comic book together and we're trying to get some word out about it at the Wizard World comic convention in Philadelphia ithis May. We'll have a table there and some free stuff and some stuff for sale, but we're mostly there to mingle (hopefully with some cool and important people)

If anyone from the board wants to say hi and talk Joss, that would be great and make my day. If anyone's interested, let me know and I'll write back later with more details.

See yas

7

[> [> Re: Phoenix Mini-Meet -- CW, 06:22:18 04/27/04 Tue

Cheryl is even more attractive and elegant than this picture makes her out to be. Being able to see Little Bit in person is also far better than not being able to see her in the picture. However I'm just as bald. Those are Buffy books between us. They were the first things we looked for, naturally.

Thanks to both Little Bit and Cheryl. It was fun.

[> [> [> Re: Phoenix Mini-Meet -- Cheryl, 19:53:50 04/27/04 Tue

CW, you're too kind - I'm blushing!

I had a blast with both of you. We could have talked for hours (cuz 3 hours wasn't enough) about Buffy & Angel. I hope we have a chance to do it again.

[> [> [> [> Next Time -- CW, 06:09:04 04/28/04 Wed

I was already thinking of contacting you about an Angel-season wrap-up meet. It looks like the weekend after the last Angel airs will probably be May 22th and 23rd . Would you and the friend, you mentioned to me earlier, be at all interested in meeting on one of those days? (If I've counted incorrectly, the following weekend is Memorial Day weekend which might not be so good for everyone.)

[> [> [> [> [> Update -- CW, 08:35:32 04/28/04 Wed

Our friendly local paper confirms this morning that the last ep is on May 19. So, what do you think?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Update -- Cheryl, 09:45:06 04/28/04 Wed

Our friendly local paper confirms this morning that the last ep is on May 19. So, what do you think?

I was thinking the same thing - I know I'll definitely want to get together with other diehard fans to rehash everything Angel and who can relate to the pain and anguish of not having Angel to look forward to every week. That weekend works for me so I'll check with Judy and let you know.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Saturday, May 22 -- Cheryl, 12:40:58 04/28/04 Wed

I checked with Judy and the 22nd will work for both of us. We can email closer to the time (sob!) and decide where and when.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Saturday, May 22 - Message received! -- CW, 14:56:07 04/28/04 Wed

Watchin "Harsh Light Of Day" and I have just one thing to say... -- Evan., 00:09:12 04/27/04 Tue

F You, Parker Abrams!!!!!

Replies:

[> Re: Watchin "Harsh Light Of Day" and I have just one thing to say... -- A Slayer's Soul, 12:03:13 04/27/04 Tue

I agree with you. He was so harsh to Buffy. If she hadn't met him directly after Angel, maybe she would have been a little more open with Riley. Maybe not, but I just wish Parker never happened to her. He was a creep. As bad as some people think Beer Bad was (and I have to say I am probably one of the few who loved that episode), at least Buffy got to KA-BONG Parker upside the head with the club. I cheered!

Also, can I just say that I really like this board. Too bad I didn't find it sooner!
Emma Caulfield reconsiders never returning to the Buffyverse? Dark Horizons interview... -- Rob, 06:12:51 04/27/04 Tue

http://www.darkworlds.com/ls/art_13905.html

DW: By some accounts you were pretty determined to leave BUFFY by the end, and you wanted Anya killed in the series finale so that even if there was a BUFFY movie or whatever, itíd be clear that you would not be back. Is that true?

Caulfield: Well, thatís all been exaggerated. I had a fantastic experience on BUFFY and I thought it was a great show, but in some ways I didnít feel that character was reflective of everything I could do. And by the end, I felt very unappreciated by certain people. Almost everybody was great, but certain peopleÖ

DW: You donít want to name names? Even off the record?

Caulfield: No. No reflection on you, but Iíve been burned too many times! It wouldnít be smart for me to say, but the people Iím talking about know who they are. By the end it was just no fun to come to work and be continually disrespected. But if they ever do a BUFFY movie and (BUFFY creator Joss Whedon) wants to bring me back as a ghost or something, Iíd be glad to do that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That tiny little sound you just heard was me smiling. :-)

Rob

Replies:

[> Re: Emma Caulfield reconsiders never returning to the Buffyverse? Dark Horizons interview... -- Evan., 09:37:36 04/27/04 Tue

I really wish they'd given her a better arc after Selfless in Season 7, I can definitely see why she would feel underappreciated in that sense.

[> Thanks for this, Rob. :) -- Ixchel, 21:34:21 04/27/04 Tue

What is a hero? (no spoilers at all) -- Lunasea, 11:55:59 04/27/04 Tue

I want to write something and I doubt it will come out right. Still I have to try. That's part of what makes me me. This is a question (what is a hero) I've thought about a lot lately. It is easy to say the hero is a symbol of self and the hero's journey is an illustration of the process of individuation. When they are written that way consciously they tend to, in a word, suck. That's the problem with The Matrix. In case we had any doubt what characters are supposed to represent, they have nice names to let us know. The symbolism is great, but that is all that movie is. It doesn't use symbols to speak to my unconscious. It makes them concrete, robs them of any emotion and beauty, and tries to speak to my conscious. This is, in another word, lame.

Joss doesn't do that. His story, like any story, illustrates the process of individuation, but that isn't what he consciously writes. At least, nothing leads me to think that. He isn't like Lucas who actually worked with Campbell's research assistant when writing Star Wars and consciously followed the hero's journey. Episodes 1 and 2 have been lame. Your opinion may differ on either movie, but my post means my opinion. They aren't the focus of this essay any way.

What a hero is is the topic of this post. Specifically, what is a hero to Joss. There have been various defintions, from the words of the Oracles in "IWRY" about "not a lower being" to the words of the Spirit Guide in "Intervention" about what a slayer does. Giles added his input in "The Gift." We have had various character misunderstand what a hero is, from Spike's mocking of Angel in "In the Dark" to Faith's mocking of Buffy "Because it's wrong" to Dark!Willow's comments about power in "Two to Go."

This fall in TNT's Drama Lounge Joss said that Angel was a hero (not an anti-hero) and what that meant. "The thing about a hero is even when it doesn't look like there's a light at the end of the tunnel, he's going to keep digging, he's going to keep trying to do right and make up for what's gone before, just because that's who he is."

All of this combines to form a picture of hero in the Buffyverse. Per the Oracles, it is about sacrifice. Per the Spirit Guide, it is about turning pain to strength. Giles adds that they can't do certain things. Spike, Faith and Willow's lack of understanding shows how important motivation is. Joss' hero is the little engine that could. A hero is a pretty complicated concept.

Joss' shows are about growing up and becoming who we are. In "Becoming" he wrote one line that stayed with me more than any other. Whistler tells Angel as he decides to become a hero, "It's not going to be easy. The more you live in this world, the more you see how apart from it you really are." That is both series to me in a nutshell. No one line encapsulates the psychological underpinnings of the show better. It isn't just about alienation and how to cope with this feeling. It is ultimately about what causes that alienation, namely actually living in this world.

Most don't. They sleepwalk through life. Even though the evidence is all around them, they turn a blind eyes to demons. They accept explanations of backed up sewers and gangs on PCP. Each of the Scoobies and the members of the Angel Investigations is exceptional not because of his or her particular talent. S/he is exceptional because s/he lives in this world.

That was Joss' first parting message. "Dawn, the hardest thing in this world ... is to live in it. Be brave. Live. For me." It is hard to live in the world, because the more we live in it, the more realize we aren't a part of it. Not that we aren't a part of the real world, but that shadow existence that people sleep walk life through. The more we love, the more we see a world that is unloving. The more we care, the more we see how little the world does care. The more we try to suck the marrow out of life, the more we see how the world wants us to just work with the system. We aren't part of the world because we live in it.

The world sucks beyond the telling of it. This causes people to suffer in all sorts of ways. That is why there's us, heroes, the exceptional, people who actually live in this world. We live in the world the way it should be to show it what it can be. By doing, this we make it what it can be, what it should be. The journey of a thousand miles starts with one step. The change of an entire society starts with one person.

This is the hero I see Joss write about. This is the story I see Joss write. The ultimate right and wrong that Joss writes about is facing our demons. It is to keep trying. It is to truly live in the world, the real world, not one that is produced when people sleepwalk. The spiritual stuff, individuation, Maslow, all that stuff is there, but that isn't what Joss is trying to write.

He's writing about a bunch of heroes, people who don't sleepwalk, people who try to live in this world. They struggle. They fall. They get back up. That is what living in this world means. It means we keep trying, even though things are hard and bright and violent. It means we don't let ourselves fall asleep. That is what makes them exceptional. That is what makes them heroes. They are apart from the world because they live in it.

The hardest thing to do in this world is to live in it.

Replies:

[> Misapplication -- dlgood, 20:01:47 04/27/04 Tue

Whistler tells Angel as he decides to become a hero, "It's not going to be easy. The more you live in this world, the more you see how apart from it you really are." That is both series to me in a nutshell. No one line encapsulates the psychological underpinnings of the show better. It isn't just about alienation and how to cope with this feeling. It is ultimately about what causes that alienation, namely actually living in this world.

Actually, what causes Angel's alienation is his Vampirism. His experiences among humans will reveal how apart from them he is - exemplified by the fact that sunlight burns him - but he also learns how alike he actually is after all.

But is Angel truly representative of us, here? Angel is a vampire - and that's what separates him. We aren't vampires, we aren't separate and isolated, unless we choose to be.

The more we love, the more we see a world that is unloving. The more we care, the more we see how little the world does care. The more we try to suck the marrow out of life, the more we see how the world wants us to just work with the system. We aren't part of the world because we live in it.

The world sucks beyond the telling of it. This causes people to suffer in all sorts of ways. That is why there's us, heroes, the exceptional, people who actually live in this world.

This is the position that Joss shows as being false and mistaken. When you hold such a negative view of the world, and of the people in it, it becomes very easy to give up on the world. To quit on your heroism. To be so enthralled with your own "exceptional-ness" that you leave your fellows to rot - because they have the misfortune to not be as special as you. Or the audacity to be exceptional in ways you cannot appreciate, like, or recognize.

It's hard to live in the world. To look at "sleepwalkers" and recognize that they are just as exceptional as you are. To see the beauty amidst the ugly. To see how much people can care, after all. To see how amazing the world really can be. To love people, to love humanity, even with all of it's flaws. And to work to preserve that. To help out people even when you think they're sleepwalkers. To help wake them up, instead of leaving them behind. To recognize that if you matter even though people don't understand you and you feel apart, than so do other people

To know that you aren't alone unless you want to be.

It's much easier to set yourself apart, wallow in your disappointment, and become S3 Faith. It's hard to reject that and be a hero.

[> [> Re: Misapplication -- Lunasea, 07:09:16 04/28/04 Wed

Actually, what causes Angel's alienation is his Vampirism. His experiences among humans will reveal how apart from them he is - exemplified by the fact that sunlight burns him - but he also learns how alike he actually is after all.

But is Angel truly representative of us, here? Angel is a vampire - and that's what separates him. We aren't vampires, we aren't separate and isolated, unless we choose to be.

"Becoming" shows the origin stories of our two heroes. Buffy is just as alienated as Angel is. We can point to their physical states, but as you say is this truly representative of us? If Angel wasn't representative of us, why would Joss even bother writing him? Why would we see Angel's origin? What is representative is how the heroes are contrasted with the general population. Denial and blame is an important theme that runs throughout the series.

This is the position that Joss shows as being false and mistaken

Please show me where he showed this. Season 6 is the low point of Buffy's feelings about the world. It does not end with her seeing the world as this bright happy place. Even when Buffy saw the world as hard, bright and violent, she didn't want it to end. Instead she wants to show this world to Dawn, this world that is full of demons.

I tend to take the words of certain characters to be accurate portrayals of what the writers believe. These characters are things like the conduits to the PTBs and the Spirit Guide. The Spirit Guide told Buffy why she thought she was losing her ability to love.

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. Love will bring you to your gift.

I quote that a lot. Why is love pain? If the world is so wonderful and loving and caring, please explain to me why Buffy pulls away from it? Why does love hurt?

When I came to the board Jan 2003, I posted She LOVED the World A Lot which is about what I call the sacred heart of Buffy. I'm sure you disagree with what I wrote, but my position about this hasn't changed. That February, I wrote this post. It goes into the trilogy that sesaon 5-7 form and how this relates to the words of the Spirit Guide.

The main characters of both shows are Buffy and Angel's hearts. Their bodies just give form to them.

When you hold such a negative view of the world, and of the people in it, it becomes very easy to give up on the world.

Just because something is very easy, it doesn't mean we do it. Heroes don't take the easy way out. I've never seen that as part of the definition of hero. Typically they are known for doing the hard things in life, such as not giving up when it would be very easy to do.

To be so enthralled with your own "exceptional-ness"

Heroes are exceptional. That is why they are called heroes. We even call them superheroes. They are super. That's part of their definition. Otherwise, they wouldn't get the designation of "hero" or "slayer" or "champion" or anything else. They wouldn't get a designation. It doesn't necessarily follow that they become enthralled in this. That's also part of what makes them exceptional. You don't live life by being enthralled with things. When they become enthralled, they are no longer living. This temporary state is short-lived in heroes. Angel may like the idea of "Angel's Avengers," but he returns his attention to the problems at hand. He may like having a prophecy about him that gives him what he wants, but that isn't why he fights. He fights because he is a hero, not that he thinks that he is one, but that he IS one. (and he IS one, because that is what the story is. That much is canon)

To look at "sleepwalkers" and recognize that they are just as exceptional as you are.

They have the potential to live in this world. In Buddhism we call it a Buddha nature. We even speak of enlightenment as waking up. That doesn't mean currently at this very minute, they are awake. Things can and do change.

To see the beauty amidst the ugly.

Just because I or anyone else, be it Joss, Buffy, Angel or any other character say the world sucks beyond the telling, doesn't mean we don't see the beauty. You have to see the ugly in order to fight it. You can't fight the vampires, if you deny they exist. You are so focused on the motivation for the fight being the good, that you are missing the motivation for the fight IS the bad.

"Earshot" isn't about how beautiful the world is. It is about the pain that everyone is in. That is what the entire series is. All these demons. It isn't about finding something to sing about. That is the wrong way of looking at things. It is about the Prayer of St. Francis:

O divine master grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console, to be understood as to understand, to be loved as to love. For it is in giving that we receive, and it's in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it's in dying that we are born to eternal life.

We don't have to find something else to sing about. WE are what we can sing about. WE are the beauty. WE are the light. WE are eternal life. We find what to sing about when we find ourselves. It is called SELF-esteem for a reason.

Buffy and Angel don't fight to preserve the good. They fight the bad. The fight to CHANGE the world. "Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. - It's harsh, and cruel."

The good may motivate you in the fight, but I do not see that perspective supported by our heroes. They fight because "people shouldn't suffer as they do." That is all the reason they need.

[> [> [> Re: Misapplication -- Arethusa, 09:23:08 04/28/04 Wed

No human being is inherently more valuable than another. No human being is inherently less valuable than another.

The only thing you have to be is you. (Preferably the best you that you can be, of course.)

Nobody is without flaws. Nobody's flaws make them a worthless human being.

Nobody has to be perfect. It's okay to make mistakes. That is how we learn.

Everyone feels alone and afraid at times.

When you divide the world into champions and non-champions, enlightened or non-enlightened-or any other catagory-you are separating people from each other, usually starting with yourself.

The only way to connect with people is to actually connect with people.

Each one of us is unique, is special. You don't have to be enlightened to be special. You don't have to have special abilities. You don't have to always be right, know more than anyone else, or have a truer heart. You just have to be you. That is enough.


That is what Angel needs to learn.

[> [> [> [> Re: Misapplication -- Lunasea, 10:49:01 04/28/04 Wed

These are all nice statements that lead people to treat others nicely, but by themselves have no real support. There are flaws with each statement.

No human being is inherently more valuable than another. No human being is inherently less valuable than another.

This statement is tantamount to "all men are created equal." We aren't. We are born with genetic differences that affect our potential. The problem is that we tend to associate rights and how we treat others with how "valuable" they are. We will say that everyone is inherently valuable equally to avoid this. Instead, why not just say that rights aren't tied to value? Why? Because? No reason necessary.

Plus there are all sorts of ways to value others. What I value, others may not, my society may not. That doesn't mean that I don't find others more valuable to either me or my society. Part of who I am is what I value. If I just say that everything is valuable, I am denying who I am. Where is the value in that?

The only thing you have to be is you.

That implies two things: 1) that I have to be anything and 2. that I can be anything else. Whatever I do is me. No one can make me be anything else.

Nobody is without flaws. Nobody's flaws make them a worthless human being.

Define flaws. Also define a "body." What point in time are we talking about? When I actually meditate, go through the jhanas and reach Nirvana, I am without flaws because I am without me. There are moments in my life where everything, including me, is perfect. There have been people in history that have maintained this status. I will not stay that any of the Buddhist Patriarchs or Bodhisattvas had "flaws." They wouldn't be Patriarchs and Bodhisattvas then. I will not say that the Buddha himself was flawed once he reached enlightenment. I can say the same of many Christian saints. At the time of their death, they were without flaw. That is why they get those cool halos and the better rooms up in heaven.

Nobody has to be perfect. It's okay to make mistakes. That is how we learn.

Again that is assuming anyone has to be anything. Without the concept of having to be, such a statement makes no sense. It implies that there is a concept of having to be perfect that you are contradicting. The Buddha didn't have to be perfect. He just was.

"It's okay to make mistakes" is one of those things we tell our kids so they don't get discouraged when they do. We shouldn't get upset when we do, but it isn't something that should get labeled "okay." It is something we should try to avoid. Stuff we should try to avoid is not "okay."

We learn all sorts of ways. Mistakes are just one. They help us learn, but we can learn without them.

Everyone feels alone and afraid at times.

Again you have to define your terms. Everyone? After a certain point, I would say that none of the Patriarchs felt alone or afraid. These concepts vanish under the idea of shunyata or emptiness. Before this time, they felt those things, but not after.

When you divide the world into champions and non-champions, enlightened or non-enlightened-or any other catagory-you are separating people from each other, usually starting with yourself.

Our very existance does that. We cannot separate people. The very concept of "I" already does that. When we divide the world into champions/non-champions or enlightened/non-enlightened or people of integrity we are seeing how we should and should not act. We cannot have role models without these categories. That is what heroes are, role models. That is what saints are, role models. You can view this as separation, but this is a step towards enlightenment and true vidya.

The only way to connect with people is to actually connect with people.

And the only way to read a book is to actually read a book. So?

Each one of us is unique, is special. You don't have to be enlightened to be special. You don't have to have special abilities. You don't have to always be right, know more than anyone else, or have a truer heart. You just have to be you. That is enough

We shouldn't separate people, but everyone is special? How does that work? Gold stars for everyone? The word loses all meaning then. We are all special in our own ways, yada, yada, so what? What is the point of this belief? Self-esteem shouldn't be built on a belief that we are "special." This is still comparing ourselves to others and is not self.

We don't strive for enlightenment to be special. We strive for enlightenment because. Just because. If you are striving for it to be special, you won't reach it. You don't have to be you. That is still having a "you" to be. Ultimately we strive to just be.

Angel needs to learn a lot, but childish platitudes that are designed to get us to treat others nicely are not part of it.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Misapplication -- Corcastus, 10:59:58 04/28/04 Wed

I appreciate your comments.

[> Re: What is a hero? (no spoilers at all) -- Cern, 06:54:32 04/29/04 Thu

"some- times there's a man--I won't say a hero,'cause what's a hero?--but sometimes there's a man, and I'm talkin' about the Dude here-sometimes there's a man who, well, he's the man for his time'n place, he fits right in there--and that's the Dude, in Los Angeles....and even if he's a lazy man, and the Dude was certainly that--quite possibly the laziest in Los Angeles County, which would place him high in the runnin' for laziest worldwide--but sometimes there's a man. . sometimes there's a man.Well, I lost m'train of thought here. But--aw hell, I done innerduced him enough."
I only wanted something else to do but hang around (Spoilers 5:17:Underneath) -- KdS, 12:38:08 04/27/04 Tue

Sorry for the delay in reviewing Underneath, which was the product of seeing Kill Bill Volume Two the same day and being more intellectually fascinated by what I thought was the subtext of that.

Overall, a good episode, but one that suffered from a slightly lazy setting. This sort of anti-suburb satire has become so safe and clichÈd as to lose all its claim to daring or originality, and starts looking perilously close to the slimy region where pretensions of political progressiveness merge into straightforward intellectual snobbery. This may be the result of living in a city where the suburbs are now largely the home of the underpaid and downtrodden, while the inner city is reserved for people with over fifty grand a year. This idea of suburbia as a zone of unease and insecurity could be said to be reflected in the episode, but the clichÈd images of regimented comfort drive them out. There are hints, however, of an older influence from CS Lewis. Lewis wrote a short story, the name of which I cannot remember, of Hell as a dreary suburb with an annual bus tour to Heaven, at which point most of the inhabitants stay on the bus because the surroundings look too bizarre, nerve-jangling and unrespectable. Certainly the idea of Hell as monotony and routine is shared.

My only other discomfort with the episode lies in the portrayal of Gunn, which tends to tip over into the very dubious ideas regarding racial authenticity that the season has verged on for some time. One understands the Faustian element, but there are some unfortunate overtones to Gunnís combination of corruption with social climbing, and the manner in which he returns to his shaved-head-and-hoodie look with his return to heroism. Not to mention the whole business of being damned to white middle-class suburbia.

There has been considerable debate on the board and on LJ as to whether Lindseyís pessimism regarding any compromise short of open rebellion is meant to be taken as absolute truth. Any conclusions on the matter, however, will have to wait until the end of the season. One does wonder, however, if the level of pessimism in the episode may have been related to the failure of MEís attempt to keep the show alive by compromising with Warners.

Lindseyís position, though, is slightly undercut by the final scene between Wes and Illyria, whose discomfort is seen in this episode to be a simple dislike of human society rather than a failure of comprehension ñ she certainly seems to understand Wesley far better than he would like. Wesleyís ìThere are worse things than wallsî stands as the antithesis to Lindsey, arguing that while too much routine may be a bad thing, the human mind cannot long stand a truly chaotic and restless existence. Wesleyís attitude to Illyria seems to shift with each moment, torn between a desire to keep her as the final remnant of Fred and a desperate desire to be rid of her, both because of her physical threat and the same memories that she brings up. Oh, and Illyria doesnít actually speak blank verse, as some viewers speculated.

There seems to be something of a submerged Neil Gaiman influence on this episode. Illyriaís eulogies for her past life seemed to me to be a not entirely successful attempt to pastiche similar riffs in Sandman, and Lindseyís repetitious torture has certain similarities to the ìeternal wakingî curse that Morpheus inflicts on Alec Burgess. The idea that Wolfram & Hart can only torture you as much as you allow them too also recalls the Sandman concept of damnation as a largely self-inflicted phenomenon.

Itís always nice to see Joss making room for another Firefly refugee, but itís left me trying to recall where Iíve seen Marcusís combination of prissiness and ultraviolence before. Heís too light and almost effeminate for Agent Smith. Any ideas?

Briefer thoughts:

Score one more against the Wes insanity lobby ñ his vision of Fred at the opening is quite clearly a dream and not an actual hallucination, as when he wakes the room, the apparent time of day, and his costume are all very different.

The source for the scene of the suburbanites collecting their newspapers in perfect unison is, if I recall correctly, Edward Scissorhands.

That really is a very small beer can by British standards that Spike pulls out of his briefcase. Maybe the sizes are different in the US, or maybe itís Spikeís attempt at self-restraint...

Replies:

[> I definitely need to visit the UK then... -- Kansas, 13:06:04 04/27/04 Tue

The typical US beer can contains 12 fluid ounces (about 354 ml). Spike is apparently going native. *g*

[> [> Poor Americans with your tiny beer cans ;-) -- KdS, 14:04:14 04/27/04 Tue

The typical UK beer can is relatively tall and thin, with a capacity of about 440ml. Compared to what we see in Underneath, it notably sticks out of a normal fist at the top and bottom in standard drinking position. Wow, I'm anal :-)

[> [> [> Well, the country was founded by Puritans -- Masq, 14:25:39 04/27/04 Tue

And of course, we tried to get rid of all beer back in the '20's.

Good thing we import it from Australia now.

They don't do anything small.

[> Good stuff re: *Underneath*. Would you care to review *Kill Bill V2*? -- OnM, who was fascinated by its subtext also, 17:04:58 04/27/04 Tue


[> The C.S. Lewis story is called 'The Great Divorce'. -- Pip, 02:01:13 04/28/04 Wed


[> Hell is not the suburbs (Spoilers for AtS all seasons up to Origins 5.18) -- Pip, 05:30:15 04/28/04 Wed

We're being presented with the cliche of the suburbs as hell. But the hell is not the suburbs, it's what lies Underneath. Hell is in the basement. The suburbs themselves only become Hell when Lindsay remembers that he has forgotten.

Nice job, nice house, nice kid, nice life. There's really nothing wrong with that. Really nothing wrong with that; the world should be like that. The wrong is that you're being asked to pay for them by forgetting. Spike said it earlier in Underneath: "while we're at it, not think about the third of the world that's starving to death." That's the deal that's being offered by W&H, and their real world counterparts. You can have a nice life. Just forget the not-so-nice happening elsewhere. Don't worry about the lives you might destroy by signing a contract. It won't be anyone you care about. Ignore it. Forget it.

Forgetting is Gunn's mistake, also. Gunn (IMO) didn't get corrupted because of social climbing. He got corrupted because he forgot where he came from. That's subtly different. It's also always been his problem; starts in Season 2 in The Thin Dead Line when it's pointed out that he's never been back to his old neighbourhood, never talks to any of the people he used to know. His old neighbourhood was being destroyed by zombie cops. Gunn's new job meant he could have got powerful help in dealing with that. But he didn't know about it. He'd chosen to forget, to ignore. He also does it in Season 3. His solution to his old gang going bad in That Old Gang of Mine? They stay in their side of town (and it's implied: he'll stay in his).

Hence the return to the shaved head and the hoodie. I remember who I was. Visual symbols. But Gunn doesn't save Lindsay by kicking ass the way he used to. Gunn saves Lindsay by the new knowledge that he bought at such a high price. He's looked up the contract. He's found the location of the prison. He's worked out a loophole. This is all his new knowledge. The changes can be for the better.

No wonder Gunn selects replacing Lindsay as his atonement. He punishes himself with forced forgetting - because he chose to forget who he once was. That forgetting is the hell is made clearer in Origins. When he remembers why he is in the basement he refuses to make a deal to get out of it. Gunn's chosen this.

Why did ME keep the same small actor who played Zach? Why not replace him with another child who looked like he could be the son of Gunn and PodWife?

Because if they'd replaced the child actor, they would have implied that Gunn's fault is that he aspired to the suburban life. Hell is a nice home, nice wife/husband, nice kid. The implication would have been that Gunn's aspirations were the problem. But when Zach is left as that very blonde little kid, we see that Gunn has forgotten everything. That's why he's in hell. Forgetting is the problem.

As I said above, that's clear in Origins. Gunn in the torture chamber without his memory is begging for mercy. His memory returned, he's saying "C'mon, Sparky, this heart won't cut itself out." Take away his memory and he's begging for mercy again.

The vision of hell this season. Partly it's when we forget where we came from. The characters are divided into those who choose to forget, and those who want to remember. Angel wants to forget what he's done. He wants everyone to forget. He wants his Shanshu, a new beginning, free of the memory of what he was. Wesley wants to remember. Look how he phones his much-hated Dad at the end of Lineage. He may hate his father, but that's where he came from. He refuses to do the easy thing, and just forget. He even refuses to forget the fake memories. 'They were created for a reason.' Not to help you hide from the truth; to help you to endure it.

Gunn wants to forget and for others to forget, with the snazzy suits and his old gang told to stay their side of the tracks or else (before he ever came to Wolfram and Hart), and the memory upgrade that will stop him going back to what he was. Spike chooses to remember. He knows who his grandsire is. He knows who he was. He now has a soul, but he's still called 'Spike' (Angel changed his name), still wears the old clothes. He could leave for Europe and his new family, but he'll stay in a place he hates because his old family needs him.

Illyria and Connor; the final pairing. They both remember, showing the audience that the crime is forgetting, not changing. Illyria has Fred's memories. She refers to them throughout Origins. She chooses to remember Fred, but she is no longer Fred. She's more than Fred. Connor was forced to forget. He remembers who he was when the Orlon window is smashed. It's remembering who he was that makes him able to win his fight. But he has new responsibilities now. 'The Destroyer' is who he was, it gives him power. But it's no longer who he is.

The gang have all changed. None of them are who they once were. But some of them remember.

[> [> Very interesting points! -- Rahael, 06:38:48 04/28/04 Wed

it fits in with the larger theme of sacrifice and false memory.

Something else - Fred and Illyria stand on the top of the skyscraper, looking down. Gunn forgets down below.

Reminds us that even with the mindwipe, what's down below might not get wiped out. It may lie there, dormant. Fred/Illyria is symbolic of that too.

The image of the heart being sacrificed reminds me of "Home". It reminds me of Angel saying at the end of S4 that they had to wall off their heart. It was Fred who protested then.

In that same episode, Fred and Gunn had a moment talking about Seidel, one of the most honest and satisfying moments I've ever seen on AtS.

I'm a little ishy still on the whole Gunn forgetting where he comes from thing. The idea of that inauthenticity when one crosses the tracks. Neverthelesss, this is an excellent reply to an excellent review.

[> [> [> Re: Very interesting points! -- Arethusa, 08:10:32 04/28/04 Wed

I'm inclined to believe that the inauthenticity of Gunn was not forgetting where he came from, but forgetting where he wanted to go. We Americans have always claimed for ourselves the right to move away from whatever condition we were born in to the place we wanted to be. (This cliche comes with the implication that we worked hard to get there, because Americans generally believe we live in a meritocracy. I think the main reason Gunn left the old neighborhood was the grief and loss of confidence he experienced after his sister was murdered under his protection. If he couldn't even save her, whom he had dedicated his life to protect, could he save anyone else?

So he went to work for Angel, who seemed to have the mission and the means to fight demons. But maybe he never recovered his confidence, continuing to feel that he wasn't good enough, especially when around unique individuals like a souled vampire, seer, Watcher, and genius. So he did the same thing Angel has a habit of doing-try to take a shortcut, make a deal to bolster his self-image. Deep inside, however, is the real Gunn, who knows he hasn't really changed, and who still has the same insecurities. He doesn't know or accept himself, so his insecurities lead him to make bad decisions. He doesn't see the cleverness that led him to solve the Reign of Fire riddle, the sophistication and ability to absorb knowledge that he demonstrated in "Players," or the genuine goodness and internal strength that Fred found so attractive.

The first helpless person you have to help is yourself, and a way to do that is being perfectly honest with yourself. It's something Wes has begun to learn, the only reason he's not still a pretentious upper-class twit. When Gunn puts on his old clothes and shaves off his hair he is trying to be honest with himself, and admit his fault and/or faults.

[> [> [> [> Re: Very interesting points! -- Rahael, 09:33:42 04/28/04 Wed

I don't know. If they had set the context sufficiently, I might feel more confident in that interpretation. Otherwise, giving Gunn lines like "Rationality is an acquired taste" continue to make me mourn for the character that I loved.

[> [> [> [> [> I know, and I can't tell -- Arethusa, 09:53:42 04/28/04 Wed

if the writers are clueless or if they're trying to show that everyone has to figure these things out for themselves. I winced at that sentence because, like with Spike, if no one points out how wrong some statements are, the audience is sometimes not able to assume that the writers meant it to be wrong. If you're going to make the audience work to understand something, give them something to work with.

[> [> [> [> btw, excellent posts from you today, Arethusa -- Rahael, 09:44:46 04/28/04 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> Thank you very much, Rah. :o) -- Arethusa, 10:05:40 04/28/04 Wed


[> [> [> [> Re: Very interesting points! -- dlgood, 09:50:12 04/28/04 Wed

That's an appealing interpretation

It's not that Gunn has left behind his racial identity, or his social identity. It's that he's lost himself.

That he's lost track of his values, of his priorities, and of his own mission. And he's coasting along trying to latch onto Angel or the idea of what they can do at W&H because he lacks the confidence to stand for what he believes. Which incidentally, happens to have much in common with the other characters anyway - and was part of the reason he and the group had bonded in the first place.

[> [> [> [> Side issue -- KdS, 13:57:26 04/28/04 Wed

Now that's the thing, because I don't see Wes as ever being really an "upper-class twit" in a simple way. Someday I, or another British person, will have to do an essay on the incredible complexity of the mixed messages put over about Wesley's class identity, and whether it's deliberate or just ME writers not getting some of the dangerous subtleties of a very murky area of British culture.

[> [> [> [> [> Please do. -- Arethusa, 15:08:08 04/28/04 Wed

Because all I know about them comes from Monty Python, so I could use more information.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, to start with -- KdS, 02:02:42 04/29/04 Thu

There's a lot of subtle stuff that would take a reviewing of the whole series to pick up, but Wesely's name is very odd for an English person. A double-barrelled name like Wyndam-Price is traditionally a farly aristocratic thing. Usually when the last survivor of a significant family is a woman they double-barrel her family name with her husband's for the children, so the name doesn't die out. (Now of course, some people in all classes are using double-barrelled names for the children of unmarried relationships, or for feminist reasons relating to women not wanting to give their family names up.)

The use of Wesley as a personal name, though, comes from John and Charles Wesley, the founders of Methodism, and is quite specifically a Northern England working class phenomenon. Not only that, it's a name which now seems fairly archaic, and would already be working its way out when Wes was born. So you have a character with an aristocratic family name, but a personal name which is very old, traditional, working class from a region and subculture whose quite distinctive accent and vocabulary Wes shows no trace of. So Wes's own name is self-contradictory in terms of his social background. It's sort of like a Boston Brahmin called Billy Bob.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You've forgotten Wales ... -- Pip, 06:36:22 04/29/04 Thu

.. but that's all right. Everyone forgets Wales. ;-)

Wesley's name is odd for an English person; not odd for a family that originally came from Wales, or possibly still comes from Wales, but is now Upper Middle Class and educates its sons in English public schools. Such a family would have 'English public school' accents, btw, not Welsh accents.

Pryce originally stood for 'ap Rhys'. It's now spelt either Price or Pryce. It isn't quite as common as Jones, but it's common enough that many, many Welsh families have added a second (hyphenated) surname in a desperate attempt to distinguish them from the tens of thousands of other Prices (or Pryces) {grin}. Jones is also frequently hypenated - double barrelled surnames aren't all that aristocratic in Wales.

Methodism was also popular in Wales, as well as in the North of England. There are still quite a few boys called 'Wesley Pryce'.

Wyndham is English, so I would guess the family either now lives in England, or were socially snobs. If we're talking upwardly mobile snobs, they married into an English family, and then used the English name as a hyphenate. But 'Wesley' was probably already a traditional name for boys in that family.

Besides, 'Wesley' sounds very posh with 'Wyndham-Pryce', doesn't it, bach?

Going back to the vagaries of the class system, I've never seen Wes as upper class. Upper middle, yes, but he seems to be 'professional' class, rather than the idle aristocracy. The stereotypical 'upper class twit' would probably hold a book written in Sumerian upside down.

[> [> Very well said! -- Pony, 08:57:10 04/28/04 Wed


[> [> Nice interpretation -- KdS, 13:53:01 04/28/04 Wed

Yes, that works very well, especially the point of Gunn's actual use of his new knowledge, but if so it's a pity that they left in the more shallow suburb jokes. Although Gunn uses his hard-bought knowledge for what is effectively self-negation so...

But I think the big problem with Gunn all along has been the question of why he keeps forgetting where he comes from, why he drifts into becoming wholly associated with AI, because so many alternative possibilities have been put forward here and elsewhere - grief over his sister, loss of confidence after his sister's death, feeling that AI is more effective against evil, discomfort with the responsibilities of leadership and being looked to for strength all the time (Arethusa has a good take on it in her reply). Personally, I think a lot of it was for off-screen reasons related to most of the ME writers not being confident or comfortable with writing that sort of mostly-black street milieu. But it's that uncertainty that raises the questions and possibly unfortunate subtexts.

[> [> [> On The Suburbs -- AngelVSAngelus, 16:50:58 04/28/04 Wed

Given how you describe the demographics/economics of your area of living, one can understand how you may find the suburban imagery offensive. However, I currently live in the middle of the United States and I did live in Philadelphia, and I can tell you that that was no inaccurate portrayal of those living spaces here.
I've always been metropolitan/urban, born and raised, and the suburbs have always, whether I was in Kansas City, Philadelphia, or Los Angeles, been the upper-class area outside the city. It has also always been the subject of what some refer to as "white flight epidemic". While I find calling it that somewhat outdated, and in the context of the present somewhat offensive, at the time it was coined it did accurately describe the reaction of many richer caucasian individuals to desegregation of city areas and being faced with more minority neighbors. The aforementioned flight describes their collective move to the nicer areas, where they could live a life with homogenous ethnicity.
Here in Missouri there are several of them that still fit this description. Overland Park. Johnson County. Blue Springs. Bonner Springs. All homogenized areas of upper-class oppulance with a reputation for discriminating against a number of things that threaten that homogeny. I live in Kansas City, where the people of those varying suburbs will occassionally trek down to to shop in the expensive shopping district in Midtown, the Plaza.
Anyway, I agree that it may be cliche', but in a series that's always A)been set in urban areas, B)Always featured a corporate/elitist/upperclass villain (W&H) and C)Has always featured issues of maintenance of integrity and a sort of grass-roots attitude in the face of the aforementioned corporate evil, its hardly out of place.
My analysis of "Origin" is up -- Masquerade, 13:27:40 04/27/04 Tue

I haven't been this exhausted by an ep analysis since "Peace Out". Extra-chewy philosophical goodness here.

keels over

Replies:

[> [fanning Masq] fresh air for the philosopher! -- Ann, 13:49:05 04/27/04 Tue

Great analysis. Never saw so many links used before. Much goodness. Rest now.

[> [> I'm a cross-referencing fool! -- Masq, 14:28:48 04/27/04 Tue

Part of the reason this took me so long was I had a tendency to doze off in my chair each evening as I worked on it. Not because it was dull (I mean, c'mon! Connor!), but because my apartment was too warm. Not enough air circulating. I need to get screens for the windows so I can open them without kitties going out and flies coming in.

Air and caffeine, definitely called for.

[> Aw shucks. -- Tyreseus, 14:09:47 04/27/04 Tue

You know I blush whenever you use something I said. I was worried no one had even read that particular post since there were so few responses. Great job on the philosophizing!

[> [> Isn't it strange? -- Masq, 14:19:17 04/27/04 Tue

You had so much to say about You-Know-Who this week, and I quote you talking about Gunn!

[> Best! Ep! Analysis! Ever! -- Rob (with the pom-poms) :-D, 14:28:04 04/27/04 Tue


[> [> Well, I wouldn't go that far... -- Masq, 14:52:34 04/27/04 Tue

I am rather fond of my analysis of Peace Out. And Reprise.

And of course I wouldn't have any analyses at all now if there hadn't been chewy philosophical goodness in "I Robot, You Jane".


; )

[> [> [> The best thing about my "Best! Ever!" proclamations... -- Rob, 15:16:39 04/27/04 Tue

...is they can be used an infinite amount of times. ;-)

Rob

[> About the Orlon Window (spoilers for the ep.) -- Pony, 19:29:54 04/27/04 Tue

I was watching Origin on Space last night and it struck me that in the scene where the box is revealed to be in Wes' hand, Vail appears frozen - he doesn't change expression or lower his hand for the rest of the scene. Since Illyria was most definitely there I'm wondering if she used her selective time flow powers to get her and Wesley into the room undetected and get the box. Makes it kind of interesting that she's used her powers under Wesley's direction.

[> [> Yeah -- Masq, 19:49:04 04/27/04 Tue

Someone just mailed me with the same observation. I will have to go back and look.

Guess I wasn't paying attention to Vail!

[> [> [> Re: Yeah -- Jane, 20:34:31 04/27/04 Tue

I noticed frozen Vail too. I assumed it was due to Illyria's time warping. So are Wes and Illyria developing a working partnership now? Hmmm.

[> [> [> [> Re: Yeah -- Masq, 10:34:35 04/28/04 Wed

So are Wes and Illyria developing a working partnership now? Hmmm.

She was all gung-ho fighting for Wes and slapping Angel around for betraying Wes' trust. Until, of course, the memories came back and Wes found out he betrayed Angel.

Wes seemed almost grateful for the memory wipe after the fact. As if remembering the events of s.s 3 and 4 as they actually happened was too traumatic for him.

I think, I hope he'll change his mind again and see that what Angel did was wrong, that taking away his memories and replacing them with false ones probably did cause some of the trouble they've encountered in season 5.

It's important to remember Connor.
Yes, remembering Connor is important. ; )

[> [> I think she did just that...(spoilers for the ep.) -- Rufus, 20:48:13 04/27/04 Tue

Illyria took out Vail so Wesley could deal with the situation at hand with Angel. Illyria also said that "he (Wesley) doesn't follow you anymore". I figure with an old-school type like Illyria, loyalty would be very important. If she feels Angel doesn't deserve loyalty she would act upon that just the way she did by helping Wesley.

[> [> [> Which is rather interesting (spoilers for the ep., unspoiled speculation) -- Arethusa, 06:19:39 04/28/04 Wed

It makes me wonder if ME is building up the partnership between Illyria and Wes for a specific reason, as well as the question of what Illyria might (or can) do about Fred's memories, if anything.

[> [> [> [> Re: Which is rather interesting (spoilers for the ep., unspoiled speculation) -- skeeve, 11:14:05 04/28/04 Wed

If she wants, I think Illyria could unkill Fred soul and all.
Mucking with time is one of her powers.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Which is rather interesting (spoilers for the ep., unspoiled speculation) -- Masq, 14:19:14 04/28/04 Wed

Mucking with time is one of her powers.

Yeah, they gave her that for a reason, and it aint just kicking vampire-butt. Maybe tonight we'll find out what it is.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Which is rather interesting (spoilers for the ep., unspoiled speculation) -- skeeve, 07:32:22 04/29/04 Thu

Given that Illyria was handing out do-overs,
will someone tell me why no one at least suggested
that Illyria go back to the Well retroactively and
wait another million years?
They might have got Fred back and Rip van Illyria
might have found a world more to her liking.

[> [> I fixed it! -- Masq, 10:28:35 04/28/04 Wed

Rewatched this morning and indeed Vail is all frozen.

However, that doesn't change my opinion that there was no need, story-line wise, to freeze Vail. I doubt he would have objected to the Window being broken. After all, he saw the Connor was failing the fight miserably. He was just itching to drop that box and give Connor what he needed to get the job done.

[> [> [> Re: I fixed it! -- Pony, 12:14:47 04/28/04 Wed

Aw, but the threat of the box was the only leverage he had on Angel. I don't think Angel would have reacted too kindly to Vail had he stuck around.

[> *applause from the cheap seats* hurrah! -- angel's nibblet, 23:50:07 04/27/04 Tue

Lots of chewy philosophical goodness. My brain enjoyed it and thanks you muchly!

I very much concurr with Rob, his cheerleadery enthusiasm is infectious :-D

*creaking of rusty cogs as nibblet's brain starts operating again*
Memories, friendships, and The Fight (AtS 5.18 Origin) -- Mike, 15:40:26 04/27/04 Tue

I have to say that this season of ANGEL is getting more and more intense, especially now that the truth about Angel's deal with Wolfram & Hart has come out in the open and the fight is going to get really dark and deadly. It is totally fitting that Wesley is the one to figure out that Angel had made the deal with the firm that affected the rest of the Fang Gang. Wesley doesn't just have an intellectual side, like Fred, he also has that curious side about things, changes, reality. My expectations about Wesley's reactions to Angel were dead on, especially about Fred's death, and the memories before and after the Orlon Window is smashed. I take it that Wesley already accepts Angel's deal in a more or less understandable fashion and will help Angel in his forthcoming battle with the Senior Partners. It is rather unsettling that Gunn and Lorne will not regain the memories that Wesley and Illyria/Fred have gotten back. Which leads to another thing, Wesley still had betrayal, agony, and ruined friendships under his belt. His relation with the group wasn't the same after he took Connor, despite my personal belief that he's always had a place as Angel's right-hand anyways. Yet go figure, Wesley's the main one of Angel's allies to get back all the Connor-centric memories. The casted-out ally of S4 gets the most inside-information now in S5.

While Angel & Connor had many of the darkest moments last season, in practically all those eps, "Origin" showed Angel & Connor to have the lightest moments in the episode. Angel
& Wesley, amongst other interactions, were pretty dark.
From the beginning of this season, things were seemingly running smoothly for the Fang Gang. Angel was practically the only one fully against their situation and wanting to dismantle W&H right away. Wesley and Gunn, most notably, were defending the notion of using the resources of evil to fight for the good. The friendships of everyone in AI, especially Angel and Wesley's, looked back in full swing, yet they were unknowingly part of a reality shift (sans Angel). Little by little, the price was being paid for everyone remaining at W&H. Lorne is becoming indifferent about his abilities and the fight against evil in general.
Gunn is leaving himself in repeat-land as penance, even though he could still remain helping the team. Wesley has a bit more to deal with, having both sets of memories; but his friendship with Angel can now be rebuilt with the truth this time and not built from a lie. After Doyle, I have always considered Wesley as Angel's right-hand man (even after S3), because other than Cordelia, Wesley knows Angel better than the others (ok, Spike too actually but he's not Angel's right-hand). Wesley pulls Angel out of the ocean, finds interdimensional text references to The Beast and its Master (Jasmine), and is the first to discover that Jasmine's true name will break the thrall.

Now, the truth is out there and Angel could finally do something about the Senior Partners. Angel probably might have put up with the diversion he got him and his friends into (W&H, using evil to fight evil) as long as the deal was still in place. Now that the deal has been broken, and Connor gained his old memories back and still remained normal and accepting of things, Angel can be at peace knowing that his son will be just fine and he can start finding real answers to defeating W&H and the SP. And even though Wesley may be more and more damaged from past season's memories and what happened to Fred recently, I think he will stand by Angel's side in facing the real evil of this season. Fighting the real fight as they have done in the past.

Replies:

[> Re: Memories, friendships, and The Fight (AtS 5.18 Origin) -- JM, 20:25:15 04/27/04 Tue

Good point about the deal. I wonder what the fine print says.

Angel and Wes are one of, if the not the, most tangled relationships in the Buffyverse. Love, hate, friendship, resentment, frustration, commitment, injury, the dynamic has changed even more often than their working relationship. I think that the memories did put Wes back on Angel's side, but whether or not he's in any shape . . . Open question.
Could Cordelia's death be counted as a mystical one? -- slayer, 17:53:59 04/27/04 Tue

Cordy was in a mystical coma and died from it so couldn't count as a mystical death. If thats true she could be brought back but probably wouldn't want it. She probably reverted back to the state from Episode Birthday and was near death.

Replies:

[> Re: Could Cordelia's death be counted as a mystical one? -- JM, 20:53:48 04/27/04 Tue

Actually, I've been wondering for awhile if Cordy was supposed to pick death in Birthday and Skip threw things with the demon offer, screwing up the original plans, and now she is back where she was supposed to be. Maybe the death was the original natural consequences of the visions.

[> [> Re: Could Cordelia's death be counted as a mystical one? -- skeeve, 08:52:08 04/28/04 Wed

Whether Cordelia's death is attributed to the
visions or to Jasmine, it was certainly mystical.

I expect that Willow could raise Cordelia,
even without an urn of Osiris.
I expect that nothing short of a long distance
call from Cordelia could persuade her to do so.
Willow probably would do it if Cordelia asked.
Cordelia doesn't have a contract with W&H.
Willow would regard her as a good influence on Angel.

Osiris doesn't strike me as a
monkey's paw in god's clothing.
I expect that if Cordelia were raised,
she would be back as either a healthy
human or a healthy "hybrid".

Current board | More April 2004